This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
You're right, Pat: they are radical secessionsists....
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is all excited that there are more kids on the bus to go throw spitballs at federal health care law. Apparently we're up to 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses signing on to the lawsuit against Uncle Sam and the best health care reform passed in 40 years... speaking of which, I still haven't heard AG Jackley or any of his co-litigants explain why they aren't suing to overturn Medicare, or Medicaid, or the 1996 welfare reform....
My argument stands: Jackley's lawsuit will lose. This is political theater that has a fair chance of hurting Republicans as they needlessly drag out an issue of which Americans have had enough for now. Jackley's hypocrisy is also laughable, as he simultaneously takes advantage of federal Medicaid law to sue Wyeth to get money for South Dakota. (Colorado, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington also missed the hypocrisy memo and have signed on to both lawsuits.)
-----------------------
Bonus reading: Jackley will likely be reviewing the Obama Administration's response to a separate health care reform lawsuit for pointers on how he's going to get creamed when his argument comes to court.
The Predictability of the Sioux Falls City Council is painful to watch
-
Former City Councilor Big T wrote an excellent letter to the editor about
how the citizens need to vote on the new parks’ expenditures. I would
agree, $77 ...
5 hours ago
Omg, what a distraction!
ReplyDeleteAtrazine, BP, Keystone XL, all evidence of corporate white-collar criminal activity and Marty wants to engage in a circle-j**k in a herd of bulls with unopposable thumbs. South Dakota, I'm so sorry for you!
Maybe AG Jackley should just announce his intention to run for Tim Johnson's Senate seat now because that's what this is really about.
Is he a quasi-honorable member of the Citizens for Libertyness?
Nice metaphor, LK. :^)
ReplyDeleteI'd rather see the law reviewed by the courts NOW rather than put everything in place and have it declared unconstitutional later on. Imagine the mess that would leave us.
ReplyDeleteHang on, Michael: I see a potential problem with that thinking. by that reasoning, would you advocate that the judicial branch be empowered to automatically review every law passed by Congress for Constitutionality? Should the courts be involved in every legislative action, just to avoid the potential complications of overturning laws after enactment?
ReplyDeleteCory,
ReplyDeleteI think that the importance of this law is not something that we want to leave unquestioned. I would hate to see us 4 or 5 years down the road with everyone depending on the new health care system to work only to see it be declared unconstitutional. I am being pragmatic.
Pragmatism is reasonable... but I'm still wondering if there lies behind your thinking a fundamental change in the separation of powers.
ReplyDeleteCory sees a separation of powers issue in having the court review the constitutionality of law? Even if the court did review every piece of legislation, that doesn't alter what it is they are doing: judicial review. It wouldn't magically morph into writing law.
ReplyDelete