The question is how high the liability shield needs to be. I think 'willful misconduct' is too high. We usually use some kind of negligence standard in these situations. It would be very unusual that you could prove that intentional misconduct had happened.
The question is, can they have their cake and eat it too?
It was the intellectual elite of the conservative movement that expressed the most concern, not the religious conservatives or the business conservatives.
I don't think anybody today sees a reason for a filibuster, but they may after the hearing if the answers are troubling to them or they feel they haven't gotten the answers to important questions.
The government may have overstated the dire circumstances going in. But when they actually came to prosecute the case, it didn't seem as dire or as strong a case when they came to the courthouse.
The government is going to lose a very good ruling to avoid having this go before the Supreme Court.
Right now it seems like the uncertainty would make senators more circumspect with Roberts.
His behavior is so erratic it's hard to know what his testimony will mean for his case. But he has a right to testify.
It depends on how extensively she was involved in policy making in her five years in the White House.
I think it's pretty probable that the verdict would hold up. My sense is that the judge was pretty careful.
