Find out how Cooch took $55,000 from the disgraced "U.S. Navy Veterans Association," in apparent exchange for his promise to get the Virginia Office of Consumer Affairs (which had "notified Thompson's group that it no longer qualified for an exemption from state registration requirements") off the group's back. Can we say "pay-to-play?" Find out more.
Take THAT Kookinelli, in large part from a "a Bush appointee who clerked for Antonin Scalia and who is seen as a major states rights advocate."
No matter how you slice the relevant market - as obtaining health care, as paying for health care, as insuring for health care - all of these activities affect interstate commerce, in a substantial way. Start with obtaining medical care. Few people escape the need to obtain health care at some point in their lives, and most need it regularly...
Congress could reasonably conclude that the decisions and actions of the self-insured substantially affect interstate commerce.
In choosing how to regulate this group, Congress also did not exceed its power...
Does the Commerce Clause contain an action/inaction dichotomy that limits congressional power? No - for several reasons...
In other words, according to a judge who is both "a Bush appointee who clerked for Antonin Scalia and who is seen as a major states rights advocate," Ken "Koch" Cuccinelli is absolutely, dead wrong in his "reasoning" against the Affordable Care Act and its so-called "individual mandate" (note: I put "individual mandate" in quotes because it's debatable whether there really is a "mandate" in the federal health care law; it's also worth reminding everyone that the individual mandate was a Republican idea, an alternative to the employer mandate).
In addition to demolishing Cuccinelli's "reasoning" on whether health care constitutes interstate commerce, the court - including its "Bush appointee who clerked for Antonin Scalia and who is seen as a major states rights advocate" - also eviscerated the bogus "activity/inactivity" dichotomy, as well as Cuccinelli's silly "broccoli" argument (sometimes he switches to asparagus instead of broccoli, apparently for variety).
In sum, with health care fundamentally ensconced in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and with the individual "mandate" (if it even is a "mandate") judged to be constitutional, there's not a heck of a lot left for Kookinelli to work with. Except, of course, for wasting Virginia taxpayers' money and his office attorneys' time, when he should be focusing on things an Attorney General is supposed to do: protecting the citizens of Virginia from pollution, corporate malfeasance, crime, internet predators, etc.
Now, with this slam-dunk ruling against his frivolous lawsuit, perhaps our esteemed AG will see the light and focus on his real job? Yeah, I know, snowball's chance in h*** on that one!
Yesterday, a U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a 64-page ruling which, among other things, demolishes Ken Cuccinelli's fallacious argument that "the passive act of not purchasing health insurance does not constitute an activity that can be regulated under the Commerce Clause." In fact, as Judge Kessler correctly points out:
It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
Now, this really dates me, but Judge Kessler's reasoning here immediately brought to mind the rock group Rush, and specifically its song "Freewill." In that song, as all of us who listened to Rush as kids know, there's a verse that goes as follows:
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
Well, it appears that Ken Cuccinelli has chosen Option A -- listening to "some celestial voice" (or maybe just the weird voices in his head?) -- on health care reform, and also on climate science and other issues for that matter. Apparently, though, Cuccinelli was not impressed with Rush's argument that "if you choose not to decide you STILL have made a choice." That, in a wildly oversimplified nutshell, is the rebuttal to Ken Cuccinelli on his challenge to the health care law and specifically the "individual mandate" (which, as Rep. Bobby Scott explains, isn't even a "mandate"). Time for Ken Cuccinelli to break out the old Rush album (but forgo the weed - lol)?
As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.
The report is part of the Obama administration's attempt to manage the debate on health care reform. And the response from the other side is predictable:
Republicans immediately disparaged the analysis as "public relations." An insurance industry spokesman acknowledged that sick people can have trouble buying insurance on their own but said the analysis overstates the problem.
"On the six-month anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama leads a backyard discussion on the Patient's Bill of Rights and hears from real Americans who are already benefitting from health reform."
Among other things, when the Patients Bill of Rights kicks in tomorrow, young adults can remain on their parents' health insurance plan until they're 26; insurance companies are prohibited from cutting off your coverage just because you made a mistake on your application; no more lifetime limits and restrictions on annual limits kick in; discrimination against kids with pre-existing conditions is banned; and much more. Obviously, this is all really good stuff, and we have the Democrats to thank for it. And remember, if Republicans get back in power, they'll try to repeal all of this. Let's make sure that doesn't happen!
Cooch may be an extremist, and he may be a nutjob, but is he right about this?
Greta Van Susteren: "If your clause about the mandate is declared unconstitutional, does the entire statute go down?"
Cooch: "...if you look at our brief, we spent a good deal of time on that, because the answer to that question is yes, the whole bill dies if we win on the individual mandate...there is no severance clause..."
How on earth does a judge find that Virginia's Attorney General has standing to sue the federal government over a law passed by Congress? If it's an activist conservative Bush-appointed judge, it's not hard at all.
A federal judge Monday morning refused to dismiss a Virginia lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal health-care law, handing the law's foes their first victory in a courtroom battle likely to last years.
U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson rejected arguments from Obama administration lawyers that Virginia has no standing to sue over the law and no chance of ultimately prevailing in its constitutional claim.
But it's ok if a conservative judge legislates from the bench, right?
My take on this whole episode is that the purchasing mandate (as I understand) does not take effect until 2014. There will be two elections for Congress BEFORE that time, and any future Congress has the ability to amend or even repeal the purchase mandate. Therefore, it is premature for any judge to rule on the constitutionality of the mandate, as the issue is not "ripe" for determination.
Exactly, although I'd also add that this isn't really a "mandate," but a series of incentives and disincentives for people to purchase health insurance. In other words, if you don't buy health insurance starting in 2014, you will NOT be going to jail or anything like that, but will have to pay a small "fine" or "tax" or whatever to compensate for your decision to go uninsured. How is that a "mandate," exactly? This entire lawsuit - and this entire line of "reasoning" - is utterly ridiculous.
UPDATE #2: Cooch explains his "reasoning" after the flip.
It seems that just about everyone has some gripe about President Barack Obama. Many of us on the left say that he hasn't been progressive enough. Those on the right - the ones who actually are conservatives - moan that he has enlarged the size of the federal government far too much. The wingnut fringe standing on the right edge of their flat earth - including the Tea Pots - spout vitriolic steam about how he must be some sort of fascist or communist, all the while screaming that, no, they are not racist.
So, what have President Obama and the Democrats in Congress managed to accomplish in the face of negative votes by the Party of No and in spite of archaic Senate filibuster rules being abused by the GOP and even with a campaign finance system that puts a price tag on members of Congress? Let's make a list.
I personally think the gentleman has earned this weekend at Acadia National Park. I don't even blame him for BP's negligence that has given us the greatest natural disaster in my lifetime. I lay that in the lap of previous administrations that made a mockery of regulatory oversight.
If you know anything about Florida's AG, Bill McCollum, you probably know he was one of the House Judiciary Committee Republicans hell-bent on driving Bill Clinton from office. Ironically, though, when earlier he sat on the Iran-Contra Investigation Committee, he wasn't big on voting to prosecute President Reagan and Vice President Bush for arming our enemies and waging an illegal war in Central America, which Congress expressly forbade. Grandstanding is McCollum's middle name, though. Is it any wonder that he also has a penchant for hanging around the wrong folks. For example Jeb Bush just happens to call him friend here.
Bill was once the congressperson for Disney World. And amusement park representation is just what you get with both Bill and Cooch. Today, both AGs have filed frivolous lawsuits trying to upend the nation's health care reform bill. Both will lose (badly). And both are wasting the court's time. Isn't there an opt-out provision anyway? So what the hell is Ken doing with our money. Oh, that's right, he claims he's not spending any of your money while he wastes his time and doesn't do his real job.
If there was any doubt that Ken Cuccinelli is wasting the Attorney General's office's time and resources (aka, Virginia taxpayer dollars) on his frivolous lawsuit against health care reform, I've got some material for him to read.
...neither of the courts handling these cases, nor any other federal court, is likely to address-let alone resolve-the merits of the issue in the context of an attorney general's lawsuit. Instead, these cases are all but sure to be promptly tossed out of court for procedural reasons obvious to a first-year law student.
The first problem is that state governments are the wrong plaintiffs to challenge the individual insurance mandate. No state will ever have to pay a penny in taxes or be told to take out health insurance: The law applies only to individuals. The attorneys general might have attempted to plug this gap by adding individual plaintiffs to their complaints. But even if they found those people, the AGs couldn't sue on their behalf right now, because the mandate does not take effect until 2014. Between now and then, all kinds of things could cause plaintiffs to lose their standing to sue: Their health could deteriorate and they could actually need health insurance; they might get a job with health benefits; or they might just have a change of heart. Any or all of these contingencies are quite likely, if a Massachusetts state government survey showing that only 2.6 percent of Massachusetts residents do not comply with the mandatory insurance requirement in that state's law is any indication. In lawyers' language, not only will the state attorneys general never have standing to bring these claims on their own; even the claims of real individuals are not yet "ripe."
So, no "standing," not yet "ripe," utterly clueless. Other than that, Cooch's lawsuit is a great idea! Heh.
By the way, I checked with Chap Petersen - a far better attorney than Ken Cuccinelli will ever be, and that is not meant as a "backhanded compliment" - and he said "I agree with it in respect to the fact that the Fed law does not take effect til 2014 so the issue is not yet ripe." Chap added that, "[i]n the meantime, the requirement could be amended or repealed -- or the state law (like Virginia's) that prohibits the requirement could be repealed." In other words, Cooch's lawsuit is premature from a legal perspective and should be promptly thrown out of court. If only we could throw Cooch out office for gross incompetence and overall insanity...
NLS provides the full letter from Cooch, which among other things, promises that "[t]ogether, we can and will defeat the socialist legislation and prove that it is an unconstitutional overreach of Federal power." If that doesn't get your blood racing, not to mention your hand reaching for your credit card to donate to Cuccinelli for Attorney General, I don't know what will! :)
For more information on the Republicans' innovative-in-a-"back to the future"-way approach to health care in America, click here. And some people say the Republicans aren't an intellectually serious party? C'mon, people, think of the possibilities here. Ha.
I wrote on Monday about comments that Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors, made comparing the Obama administration to that of the Nazi's.
Today, Stewart responded to his deeply offensive remarks by claiming that he didn't "intend" to compare the Obama administration to the Nazi's. Stewart went on to say, "Oh, that's ridiculous. That's ridiculous. Absolutely not." He then said that he would continue to offer similar remarks.
Of course, he said all of this is a "typical liberal reaction."
I don't know what's worse: the fact that he claims that he didn't draw the comparison or that he defiantly insists that he will continue to use this sort of language.
I thought that Stewart would try to claim that he was taken out of context, so that is why I posted the entire video. Stewart was clearly trying to fan the passions of the crowd with this comparison. This was a common theme throughout the program. There is no doubt in my mind that he knew what he was saying. No doubt.
While this may be all fun in games for Stewart, the reality is that this sort of rhetoric may cause someone with violent tendencies to act out. It's already happened with Congressman Tom Perriello's brother.
At a April 10th Tea Party Rally in Stafford, VA, Ken Cuccinelli insisted that he had a mandate to reign in the Federal Government. He pretty much stated that we should expect more of the same from him (i.e. more frivolous lawsuits). How did this guy get elected?!
Good question, Marc. I'd also ask, "How are we going to survive 3 years, 9 months more of this true believer/extremist?"
P.S. By the way, Cooch, those of us "on the other side" do care about the Constitution, we just read it in light of 200 years of legal precedent and not in the narrow, twisted way you do.
Bristol Palin's new PSA here admonishes kids to, well, not do what she did. As the saying goes, "Not that there is anything wrong with that" (trying to help kids). Well, maybe there is. While it may help for kids to hear hard lessons from other kids, Bristol Palin still didn't practice what she preached. Bristol is probably a good kid. She made a mistake, which many kids have. I wish her well and hope she has a good life. But the message seems to be pitched only at disadvantaged kids, not those whose mothers made, say, $75,000 a pop for an air-headed speech, more than a million from a poorly ghost-written memoir, and buckets of money spreading FAUX "news." Not everyone can be so (monetarily, at least) lucky.
Listen to the PSA at the link above. That's just a little hypocritical. After all, as the above-linked article shows,
Interestingly, the abstinence driven campaign is very much a reversal for Bristol, who told Fox News that she thought abstinence campaigns were "not realistic at all."
The "abstinence only," message she now preaches outside this PSA is a nice wholesome thought, but it is also wishful thinking. Research shows specifically that abstinence only programs do not work. And abstinence-only most certainly did not work for Bristol Palin. She's a poster child, not just for the need for sex education, but also, specifically, for family planning. Given the evidence, you'd think that would be the end of abstinence-only programs. But that's not in the Republican play book. The GOP has to appease the base. (Take note, Obama administration, you, who don't appease your base (ever)). Instead, you throw money by the millions at the other side's base. And they still act horribly to you). There is more and it may shock you...
I'd love to see Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli debate this guy.
The attorney general of Kentucky is dismissing calls from leading Republican officials to sue the federal government to block the recently passed health care legislation.
In an interview with the Huffington Post, Jack Conway, a Democratic candidate for Senate and current Kentucky AG, described talk of health care lawsuits as the baseless meandering of Tea Party conspiracy theorists; not to mention a potentially large waste of taxpayer money.
"Most constitutional scholars looking at this issue say it is absolutely clear that these lawsuits will not be successful," Conway said. "While it may make for good Tea Party politics for [Republican Senatorial candidate] Rand Paul and Sarah Palin, it makes for really lousy lawsuits. And I'm not going to waste the taxpayer resources of the people of Kentucky on political stunts."
"The last thing I need is a lecture on the constitutional law from Rand Raul or Sarah Palin," he added.
Wait a minute, "waste the taxpayer resources?" Didn't our fine Attorney General inform us that his lawsuit against the federal government will only cost Virginia taxpayers $350? That is, unless you don't believe Kookinelli that his staff time on this case, which undoubtedly will reach into the hundreds of hours, doesn't need to be factored in to the cost. How much do those guys make, anyway, minimum wage? Maybe Jack Conway can ask Cooch about that when they debate. Heh.
(Good job as always by ACDC. I hear that the Prince William County Democratic Committee is also busy, urging the Republican-controlled Board of Supervisors there "to focus on the issues that face Prince William County every day -- such as home foreclosures, rising utility costs, cuts to our school system and predatory loans -- rather than writing letters, resolutions or proposals that support frivolous lawsuits against the federal government." Nice job by Pete Frisbie et al. - promoted by lowkell)
The following proposed draft resolution, on Cuccinelli's Attack on Health Care Reform, will be put forward to the full Arlington County Democratic Committee on Wednesday's general membership meeting.
Just last month, ACDC approved a resolution calling on Congress to support full legislative repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2010.
For details about the event or to RSVP, please go to our Facebook event. Full text of the draft resolution below.
Webb spoke briefly about the recently passed health care reform legislation - which engendered much conflict across the aisle - and expressed disappointment in its execution. "In my view, health care legislation is more good than bad, but in some cases, it is a close call," he said. "This is a pretty good example of how not to pass a bill."
Webb said that the problem came from the administration's unwillingness to clearly state to Congress what needed to be included in the bill. In addition to criticizing the Democratic administration's role, he also claimed that in an attempt to use the issue in 2010 and 2012 elections, the Republican members of the government refused to cooperate.
"Quite frankly, it was a nightmare," he said. "It was the worst thing I've ever been involved in terms of politics."
When asked by a student about the concern that Congress is not as close-knit as it used to be, Webb said that this was less of a concern than the abuse of the filibuster.
"We have a very difficult time moving legislation when we have people who want nothing done," he said. "With so many bills waiting to get on the floor, this is the thing that is holding up the U.S. government."
No disagreement here: the process of making the "sausage" of health care reform legislation was ugly, and the filibuster is being abused and overused. On the latter issue, perhaps Jim Webb can take the lead in fixing it, especially since "he views himself as more as a leader than a politician." It seems to me that fixing the filibuster will take a leader like Webb far more than a politician like...well, many others in the U.S. Senate.
Dr. Jack Cassell, the Orlando urologist who put a sign on his door letting patients know he doesn't want to have to treat them if they are Obama/health care reform supporters, was on my radio show Friday night, but didn't seem to know much about the health care bill he's criticizing.
Here's the exchange:
Cassell: Hospice cuts in 2012...Does the government want people to die slowly?
Colmes: Do you really think the government wants people dead?
Cassell: Well I think that they're cutting all supportive care, like nursing homes, ambulance services...
Colmes: What to you mean they're cutting nursing homes?
Cassell: They're cutting nursing home reimbursements
Colmes: Isn't what they're cutting under the Medicare plan what was really double dipping; they were getting credits and they were getting to deduct them at the same time.
Cassell: Well you know, I can't tell you exactly what the deal is. Colmes: If you can't tell us exactly what the deal is, why are you opposing it and fighting against it?
Cassell: I'm not the guy who wrote the plan.
Colmes: But if you don't know what the deal is why are you speaking out against something you don't know what the deal is?
Cassell: What I get online, just like any other American. What I'm supposed to understand about the bill should be available to me.
Colmes: It is; it's been online for a long time; it's also been all over the media...
To summarize, Dr. Cassell has absolutely no clue what's in the new health care reform law, but doggone it he won't treat anyone who supports the damn thing! Make any sense? Of course not, but has the lack of facts and logic stopped opponents of health care reform up to now? Nope.
The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, and "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!
How on earth does a judge find that Virginia's Attorney General has standing to sue the federal government over a law passed by Congress? If it's 
If there was any doubt that Ken Cuccinelli is wasting the Attorney General's office's time and resources (aka, Virginia taxpayer dollars) on his frivolous lawsuit against health care reform, I've got some material for him to read.
Bristol Palin's new 
I'd love to see Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli 
C'mon, Senator Webb, 
