See This is Why Greg Sargent Gets on My Nerves

      He seems to have this congenital issue with ever allowing liberals like me to relax even a little. He-and Paul Waldman-always push the narrative that the Dems will never be in control at the state level or run the House again. 

      Don't get me wrong, there are reasons for concern. But the GOP has more than it's share of concerns to-like how it ever wins the Presidency again. 

     "Few things are as dangerous to a long term strategy as a short-term victory. Republicans this week scored the kind of win that sets one up for spectacular, catastrophic failure and no one is talking about it."

      http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2014/11/the-missing-story-of-the-2014-election/#28114101=0

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/12/democrats-vs-republicans-who-has.html

     On healthcare too, he's just a relentless Cassandra warning liberals that ACA may very well about to be gutted thanks to King v. Burwell. 

     So today was the day after hearing about this for so long the opening arguments in the case were finally made. It went relatively well for the Dems as Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to see the potential dangers of ruling against the federal govt-and most of the states who side with the feds. 

     "As every single report thus far has pointed out, perhaps the most significant thing to happen today was that Kennedy repeatedly said siding with the challengers would raise serious federalism and Constitutional concerns. As Sahil Kapur reports:

Kennedy appeared to sympathize with the challengers’ argument that the plain text of the law forbids subsidies on the federal exchange serving some three-dozen states that didn’t build their own. But he also seemed deeply worried about an intrusion on states’ rights if the subsidies were stripped away without a clear warning.

“Even if you prevail on the plain text of the statute,” Kennedy told the challengers’ lawyer, “there’s a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument.”

     "This would be in keeping with the idea, which I laid out the other day, that Kennedy might be susceptible to the argument by some 20 states that the challengers’ reading — and the gutting of the subsidies — would retroactively impose a punishment that “would upend the bargain the states thought they had struck,” positing a “novel kind of coercion” that would “threaten to injure a state’s citizens and to destroy its insurance markets in order to force state government officials to implement a federal program.” The states continued that the Justices must opt for a reading of the statute that doesn’t raise attendant Constitutional concerns. As one Kennedy scholar put it, Kennedy believes it’s a “vital safeguard” of states’ sovereignty that conditions attached to federal spending be “expressed unambiguously.” Kennedy’s questioning today suggests he may." 

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/04/a-hint-of-good-news-for-obamacare-but-dont-get-your-hopes-up-too-much/

     But, of course, after all this, he has to finish with this:

     "Conclusion: Today’s arguments went better for the government than they might otherwise had. They suggest Kennedy sees a way to upholding the subsidies. But there’s no telling whether he’ll actually take it. I’d still put the outcome at 50-50."
     It's like getting only credit for defeats. If the initial questioning didn't sound so good he'd probably be telling us the outcome had fallen from 50-50 to about 90-10.
     
     Obviously, I'm speaking a little tongue in cheek here-he's right that we shouldn't get our hopes up too much but he just says it so much. 

     What parallel universe does Antonin Scalia live in:

     "Then there was this bizarre moment featuring Justice Scalia, when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli brought up all the consequences that would ensue if the court found for the plaintiffs:

JUSTICE SCALIA: What about Congress?  You really think Congress is just going to sit there­­ while all of these disastrous consequences ensue? I mean, how often have we come out with a decision such as the ­­ you know, the bankruptcy court decision?  Congress adjusts, enacts a statute that ­­ that takes care of the problem.  It happens all the time.  Why is that not going to happen here?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, this Congress, Your Honor?

(Laughter.)

You know, I mean, of course, theoretically­­ of course, theoretically they could.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don’t care what Congress you’re talking about.  If the consequences are as disastrous as you say, so many million people without ­­ without insurance and whatnot, yes, I think this Congress would act.

     "Right. This Congress, the one that has voted to repeal the ACA over 50 times, the one that can’t pass a budget without a crisis. They’ll just fix it. Problem solved."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/04/happy-hour-roundup-554/

     Well, in all fairness, they fixed Clause 4 of the Voting Rights Act-oh wait. 

     http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/zero-hour-bid-fix-voting-rights-act

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/voting-rights-act-congress_n_6249098.html

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/voter-id_n_6103634.html

     http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/voting-rights-act-faces-republican-opposition

      Let's just hope that Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts don't live in this parallel universe. 

      UPDATE: Paul Waldman and Sargent read from the same playbook-regarding Kennedy he says:

      "Just think, millions of people’s lives depend on what kind of mood this one man is in."
   
       Ok boys! We get it. This could be bad.

      UPDATE 2.0: I like the boys-Waldman and Sargent, but they're very pessimistic. Its necessary to be realistic but, c'mon. You know who I like better than them-Abigail Moncrieff.

      http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121211/king-v-burwell-oral-arguments-scotus-will-rule-obamacare