Skip to main content

I read several articles concerning all the states that have challenged health care reform as unconstitutional.  Various Attorney Generals were reported to have joined together to save America from the evils of socialism.

Eric Cantor is not the biggest Republican liar it appears.  You see the tale of the states challenge is a bigger lie.

In Texas, we have Greg Abbott as our Attorney General.  He is as lazy a Republican as only they can be in Texas.  But, he employs many, many Assistant Attorney Generals whose job is to collect back child support, set child support and enforce child support obligations, by jailing the offenders if needed.

Among other things, Abbott's employees regularly ask the Republican judges of our state to order a parent to provide health insurance for their children and regularly ask those same judges to jail those who fail to provide those children health insurance.

And, Abbott regularly issues press releases boasting of his prowess and his employees diligence in enforcing these orders.  In short, he is a hypocrite.

But, he is also a liar.  The lawsuit described by the press as a challenge by fourteen states has at least one state that is not part of that suit.  That would be Abbott's home state and employer Texas.

You see Abbott cannot sue anyone on behalf of the State of Texas without authorization of the State Legislature, which has not met, considered the action or authorized the litigation.

Abbott simply put his name on the lawsuit.  Texas is not even claimed as a party to the litigation.  It is simply a publicity stunt to impress the tea party Republicans.  Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Originally posted to dabtl on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 06:39 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Wasting taxpayer money on a moot point - (7+ / 0-)

      There's already an "opt out" clause for the states - these AG's need to read the bill before wasting precious taxpayer money.

      There will be monumental backlash against the GOP for their partisan attempt to defraud the public on this one.

      I smell lawsuits against these AG's for "derelection of duty" in that this provision already exists and they are doing it just for the publicity - at the taxpayer's expense.I guess they think their constituents are idiots?

      "If by a Liberal, they mean someone who cares about the welfare of the people, then I am proud to say I'm a Liberal". Ted Kennedy

      by caduceus4 on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 06:44:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The AGs are doing this to help them (7+ / 0-)

        run for Governor or Senator.  

        An AG, having won a state-wide office often uses it as a stepping stone for the 2 top state-wide offices.

        That's why at leat 2 Republican AGs in states with Democratic governors have filed suit without talking to the governor prior to filing the suit.  (Washington and Pennsylvania.)

        It's not a moot point, it's a way of the Republican AGs showing conservative chops. So it doesn't matter to them that the law suits will be speedily dismissed by the court.

        It's a free way for the AGs to lay the groundwork for a future election campaign - paid for by the tax payers of the state.

        •  Michigan governor has directed (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alma, ybruti, Clytemnestra

          Republican Attorney General Mike Cox (who yeah is running for the Republican nomination for Governor) to file for the state in support of the Bill.  

          http://hosted.ap.org/...

          He had already announced that he was joining the suit against the Bill.  I hope the AGs drop this nonsense, Michigan doesn't need to waste money on this junk, but if he follows through it looks like we may have two suits.

      •  Agree with you. (0+ / 0-)

        The idiot AGs jumping into this campaign will face repercussions in their future careers, and will look like idiots to future generations.

  •  AG's will get huge backlash for derelection of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv, Clytemnestra

    duty on this one.  Clearly, these fools have not even read the bill or they'd realize that there is a provision in it for the states to "opt out".

    Now they're doing this on the taxpayer's dime.  This will have very serious consequences for them each personally as well as the GOP generally because it's a partisan football.

    "If by a Liberal, they mean someone who cares about the welfare of the people, then I am proud to say I'm a Liberal". Ted Kennedy

    by caduceus4 on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 06:46:47 AM PDT

  •  Political grandstanding at taxpayer's expense.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv, Clytemnestra, BasharH

    Watch the taxes zoom in those states.

    The people can send their AG a collective "thank you note" for the taxes they will pay to prop these irresponsible lawyers up for their own national recognition.

    "If by a Liberal, they mean someone who cares about the welfare of the people, then I am proud to say I'm a Liberal". Ted Kennedy

    by caduceus4 on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 06:47:58 AM PDT

  •  Republicans in a frenzy against... their own bill (4+ / 0-)

    All someone has to do is get a youtube with John McCain, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney and a host of modern-day revolutionary wannabes touting THEIR idea for a individual insurance mandate...

    ...and they lose all cred with their Tea Qaida base, never mind the rest of the country .. you know, the majority that liked Democrats so much they voted in waves for the blue team in two successive elections.

    "Love thy neighbor" is easy. It's next-door neighbors that are a challenge. :)

    by cskendrick on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 07:00:38 AM PDT

  •  Recalls are needed (0+ / 0-)

    This case is so sloppy they haven't cited a single case law or requested an injunction.

    But the potential cost to the states is great

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

    by MrMichaelMT on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 07:05:38 AM PDT

  •  Recalls cost taxpayers dollars, as well. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv

    Nov. is close enough. The state's Democratic parties will be passing up a golden opportunity not to use this to show voters the GOP's true face.

    "Looks like we got ourselves a Reader" - Bill Hicks

    by blueoregon on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 07:16:34 AM PDT

  •  I heard the Florida "lawsuit" didn't even cite... (5+ / 0-)

    ...any previous court cases to back up it's contention.

    These aren't lawsuits, they're PR releases.

    Jesus was a Socialist.

    by Bush Bites on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 07:58:38 AM PDT

  •  This whole thing is going NOWHERE. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SingleVoter, Luetta, AguyinMI

    Read what Linda Greenhouse has to say on the prospects for these suits in the SCOTUS.  Not too strong a case.

    Oh, and these AGs are also claiming to be challenging the individual mandate.  They do not have standing to challenge the individual mandate.  That will have to await 2014 (when they go into effect) and someone then being fined by the IRS and challenging that fine in court and only then making its way through the courts to the Supremes.  2016 at least until that issue is dealt with.

    The GOP -- seeing that government by the corporate interests, for the corporate interests and of the corporate interests shall not perish from this earth.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 08:03:11 AM PDT

  •  There are also NAFTA (0+ / 0-)

    and WTO restrictions that have to be considered.

    The US can't undermine the economic prospects of Mexican doctors or Indian hospitals by requiring insurance good at more convenient US doctors and hospitals.

  •  There is also the matter of fairness (0+ / 0-)

    in forcing American programmers to compete with Indian programmers, but allowing US licensed doctors to have an unequal economic environment tilted 100% in their favor by mandated health insurance.

  •  I smell something too (0+ / 0-)

    It's brown, stinky, and usually sticks to the bottom of your shoe.  Beside that I smell a Summary Judgment for Failure the State a Claim.  Some call it the "so what" judgment.  I'm not a constitutional lawyer but from what I've read there are multiple claims made in the complaint but none of the claims are supported by case law.  The complaint does not specify what section(s) of the constitution have been violated.    That may be typical, it may not be.  But from the look of complaint, it appears that the AGs want the Court to figure out what section(s) of the constitution have been violated by the health reform LAW.  That will (should) never happen.  The Court will probably dismiss the case without prejudice and tell the AGs to file the complaint correctly, if they want the Court to hear the case.  Because the complaint has not been "fast tracked", I believe that this is just a smoke and mirrors game the repugs are playing.  Just my opinion.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site