Is Michael Waldman an idiot?

Yes. In March, during oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, a government lawyer claimed that campaign finance laws gave the government power so broad that the government could criminalize distribution of books about politicians by companies, unions, nonprofits, etc. Audience members gasped at the government's assertion of such broad power.

In light of the government's broad assertion of power, the Court in late June ordered additional arguments, scheduled over two months later. According to Michael Waldman in the Times, this constitutes a "a rush reargument. . . It’s the judicial equivalent of a Las Vegas elopement- – it might be a good idea, but the haste suggests otherwise."

What an idiot. Over two months to develop arguments and research, and if the parties did their jobs the first time, there was really no reason to do additional research: the case law is finite and should have been reviewed and understood the first time around. But ten weeks is a "rush" and a "Vegas elopement". I'm pretty sure this yahoo runs the DMV.