Virginia's Wingnut AG Says He'll Sue Federal Government If Health Care Reform Passes
Oy. This guy again.
You know, the one who told Virginia universities it was okay to discriminate against gay students? Or how he told Virginia residents that he thought he could challenge Obama's presidency based on his birth place? Or how he said he wasn't getting a Social Security number for his kid because it's being "used to track you"? That's the guy, freakishly right wing, birther numbskull Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
He's talking big again:
Virginia will file suit against the federal government if the Democrats' health care reform bill is approved, said a spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) this afternoon.
Cuccinelli has suggested previously he would likely file suit, but spokesman Brian Gottstein said that Virginia's lawsuit over government health care is now certain. Although Gottstein gave no details of the legal basis for this kind of lawsuit, he indicated that the process is "still being worked out."
In a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Cuccinelli warns Democrats of using the "deem and pass" approach, which would not permit a freestanding vote on the Senate-passed health care reform bill.
They're working out those pesky little details like a legal basis to sue. Of course. I hope they don't let precedent like the vilified "deem and pass" being used over 100 times keep them from wasting the People's tax dollars on frivolous lawsuits. I'm sure the irony of that doesn't even penetrate through his dense little birther skull.
fighting windmills.
What an asshat.
All I can say is "Good luck with that"
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
there will be many of these..Not all will be taken by the courts --depends on how the legislation gets passed!
and the court can declare the Baggers of Tea and the Rethugs are illeagle ( a sick bird).
"Let's talk dirty to the animals"
This is what Republicanism is today. This is what the GOP has become.
Lovely.
elected or appointed?
by asshats.
it doesn't answer my question.
by popular vote.
*
Given that the Guv and AG are two ideological wingnut peas in a pod, I think that VA voters might well be having buyer's remorse sooner than usual with Republicans.
Throw in the massive cuts to public education announced today by Cristie in NJ, and both of these GOP victories are
starting to look familiar.
Cristie is doing what's needed to balance the state's budget, and he's targeting PUBLIC unions to do it. He'll also have to raise taxes in the most taxed state in the union. If you disagree, you need to look at CA's unfunded obligations to it's public-sector unions.
Government employees are already part of a union, and that union is us.
"That union is us?" Really? So the next time a teacher or court clerk is being treated abusively by a supervisor, are you going to step in and deal with it, or should I?
My schedule is fairly open the next few days, so let me know.
in the private sector. Why should they expect more, and why should you be willing to pay more (you are, after all, their employer).
If you want to pay more than you should, that is to say, more than the private sector would for equivalent services — especially in a time of deflation, then you aren't really thinking straight.
Didi you check CA's unfunded liabilities to public unions? Can you tell me where this money will come from? Do you realize that CA is the 8th largest economy in the world, and that it's bankrupt? Do you realize that many on public pensions can retire at 50 years old at full salary ON YOUR DIME? Show me an equivalent in the private sector (you can't).
I'm not anti-union, I'm anti PUBLIC EMPLOYEE union.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Public sector unions have been essential in making public employees part of the middle class, which has been eviscerated enough already, thank you.
What California (and everybody else) needs to do is raise marginal tax rates and close loopholes so that the top 20% or so are shouldering a tax burden slightly more in line with their income.
as crony capitalism —both are based on political favoritism. You know not what you speak of.
I'll be VERY interested in days to come WHO exactly he intends to sue and on what grounds.
the process is "still being worked out"???
Need I remind people that this guy is THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, both a lawyer and the highest ranking law enforcement official in the state? He doesn't know who exactly he'd sue or for what?
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
on the grounds that there is nothing legal about requiring a citizen to purchase anything from a private company, or from a list of private companies.
Auto insurance?
.
Being forced to be a customer seems off, and I don't think the auto insurance analogy holds up - you can give up driving, and I believe you also have the option of opening an escrow account to cover potential liability.
If there were a genuine public, non-profit option, requiring people to have health insurance might be more defensible. (I am not holding my breath for the best solution - single payer.)
trumps state government. I can't imagine what basis this guy will use that would stand up in court.
It's my birthday today, and thinking about being 53 already has led me to 1 question. Has the GOP machine including all those birthers/tea baggers/right wing zealots /selfish/lying/POS/hypocrites been any worse than they are today?
Every day above ground is a good day. Enjoy.
And no, to answer your question. What we have today is Tricky Dicky times 4 as all these assholes are straight out of his asshole.
Never in my 57 1/2 years has it been this bad.
"Let's talk dirty to the animals"
Thanks.
You reinforce my belief that some people are just A holes.
Odd that they are mostly in 1 party!
That was kinda fun,...one more lap around the sun.Take care of yourself,we need you. At 55 you get a discount at Ihop!
....the fools do not realize,a population that can ,..... not paticipate .............in the 'economy'...,can not keep it viable!..........."we are listening,.......and we're not blind.,......this is your life....this is your time."
I'm about to type something I have never typed or said before. Happy Birthday, Numbnuts! :)
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I never thought I would hear it put that way!
so I have to wonder if the republican men are gay and just want to be screwed by the good looking guy. Of course then there's Mitch McConnell so that kind of kills that theory.
And he wants it bad from ol' snakey here! This guy looks like a lunatic sociopath to me and I'm gay. Better brush up Ron or you're in for at least two Hellish relationships.
No one wants to be screwed by human-turtle hybrid. (all credit to colbert for the phrase)
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Whatever happened to rightwingers against frivolous lawsuits?
they are for Dems or the poor, or working people.
Yep, the Others (republicans with no brain) keep ranting about how the health care reform doesn't do anything about frivolous lawsuits, which, in fact, are not that bad, but one of their own, a homophobic birther is going to sue the Federal Government over, ....well, SOMETHING!
sanity isn't a requirement for his job.
What a waste of taxpayers money. I thought Repubs were all about torte reform and stopping lawsuits. Oh, I forgot. They want to stop us from suing. It's always okay if they want to sue. Former senator Rick Santorum was notorious for suing doctors.
.
instead of fitting intel to policy (as in iraq), this asshole is trying to fit a lawsuit to politics.
Although Gottstein gave no details of the legal basis for this kind of lawsuit, he indicated that the process is "still being worked out."
there are no details, because there is no legal basis. i am sure the people of VA are appreciative that their AG is using his time and their taxes for this dunderheaded political stunt. although, i imagine in the knuckledragging universe of the tea party types this will be well received.
see my comment, below.
let us help these poor folk out by getting their disorder recognized.
Just as MADD was formed to help drunks from murdering us on the streets, , sign this petition so AP's can get the help they need.
This is a way for us to discuss the havoc wreaked upon society by such anti-social individuals forcing their selfish desires upon us.
http://www.change.org/actions/view/authoritar...
... The cause is free will, the reason is due to the interpretation(s) of our creator(s).
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that the government couldn't be sued. Who exactly would he sue? Each person in Congress? The President? The clerks? This guy is an idiot.
The Republicans are revealing who they really are. It is at the point now they might as well make an announcement and say we are the party of plutocrats and we don't have any interest in the common man.
To anybody who is honest and has half a brain this is loud and clear. I mean these guys are guaranteed health care by the tax payers but when it comes to making sure those tax payers who don't have health care they don't count, and they don't deserve it. Their disdain of the average person has become very poignant as the drama builds for the final vote on health care.
Health care reform is crucial and must be carried out if there is any chance of turning the long term future of the country around. Not only that the morality of a nation with the largest economy not helping out its citizens to get some health care is clearly on the line here. How can anybody play games with this while 45 million people die every year because they don't have health care? This in itself is egregiously immoral.
To me it is clear as a blue sky and from my point of view these people are just as much sociopaths as a serial killer. Ignorance is devastating and crippling, look at how the Republicans are exploiting those who don't have the insight to see what they are doing.
He wants to sue but - HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT THE BASIS OF HIS LAWSUIT WILL BE??
Well good for him [eyeroll] . .
doesn't mean he's always wrong.
healthcare in its current form will not withstand a single court challenge. The government cannot, and should not be able to, force a person to purchase anything from a private entity. The public option is the ONLY way to do this, legally.
You would think so. The government can force us to pay into Social Security and Medicare because they are government run programs. But buying into a "private" insurance company could be a completely different matter.
are public, not private. So is income tax.
I don't agree people are forced to buy car insurace from private entities but I agree there should be a public option and I hope a public option is adopted once this is through. In fact I think single payer is the most efficient and cost effective method to do this but the problem is the political realities.
to buy auto insurance. You are free to walk or to take public transportation.
This is a constitutional reality.
But I cannot get from Oakland to SF along the Bay Bridge by walking or riding a bike at 3am. It is illegal(and unsafe!)I am mandated to use a carbon emitting machine, by my government.
Its all theory until you actually try it....
but it would be more difficult and dangerous. You have the option of purchasing a car and insurance. Such is freedom.
"But I cannot get from Oakland to SF along the Bay Bridge by walking or riding a bike at 3am. It is illegal(and unsafe!)I am mandated to use a carbon emitting machine, by my government. "
Uh, wait and take a bus. You're not "mandated" to do anything.
to have car insurance in many states. If you get pulled over and fail to show "proof of insurance" you get a ticket and a hefty fine.
required to own a car, or drive a car, or have a driver's license.
required to own a car. I guess what I can't understand is why people have no problem with paying car insurance or home insurance but when asked that they insure their health, they start raising hell. I remember those days with no insurance and it's very scarey to be uninsured, especially when there are children involved.
You assume "people have no problem." I, on the other hand, assume most of the 30 million in America can't _afford_ health insurance. Do you know what percentage of America is at the poverty level? And do you know that the poverty level is something like $14,000/year (I assume gross?) for a single person? Do you honestly believe somebody at $14,000/year _HAS_ disposable income, much less, snottily assume they are spending it on plasma TVs instead of being responsible and buying health insurance? Health insurance that is probably worthless anyway because they will never go to a doctor for preventative care because they will not have the disposable income for the co-pays.
Come on, America. We've been hearing about the welfare queens driving Cadillacs since Reagan. Hasn't that fantasy gotten old? Let's quit being assholes about kicking the poor in the teeth, can we?
And, yes, I think requiring mandatory health _insurance_ instead of taxes for universal health _care_ is unconstitutional. So this AG might just be causing trouble but if he goes with this tack, I'd say he's like a broken clock -- right twice/day.
or most states require auto insurance if you drive the vehicle on a public roadway. But that is state based, not fed based. Which a state if sued could argue under the 10th amendment.
get used to paying for their own highway systems.
In many states, you will be fined $500 if you are caught driving without insurance, which is bought from PRIVATE companies, like Allstate and State Farm, et.al.
Also, you can't just 'sue' based on nothing. The courts do throw out or refuse to hear a case if it is frivolous.
this has been covered.
this is not based on nothing. I want universal health coverage, but not if I am forced to pay a private, for profit company. That's not frivolous.
thanks for that, i think you make a great point about the govt forcing us to buy a private entity's services and the legal challenges such a law should face.
fwiw, i urge my reps to vote against the bill
... that public safety - a populace that has access to quality healthcare - is mandated by the Constitution, unless you want to discount the bit in the Preamble about promoting the general welfare.
Communicable diseases, after all, don't give a shit about the Constitution.
The public option is available, and it is the only Constitutional way to do this — regardless of the Constitutional grounds you want to use. The general welfare could, should, and can only be accomplished by a public option.
There's a big difference in between the government taxing me to help those on welfare, and government requiring me to give money directly to the guy living on the grate outside my office building.
But do you REALLY think that the Cuccinelli would want to put the federal government in a position where they HAVE to offer a public option?
but that (or his real goal of maintaining the status quo) will be the end result.
But I don't think they're that stupid.
They don't want this to end up being better, so I doubt they'll use the constitutionality of the mandate as the legal basis.
He may be a homophobic birther, but lawyers do play out scenarios to get to the result they want and choose the strategy to get them there.
as homophobic as Troy King, R-Alabama is
http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/Anti-Gay...
... a clear expression within the Constitution that says the government must be an O&O provider (owned and operated) for public services, I maintain that the general welfare trumps AG Cucinelli's concerns.
Your example of taxation/welfare and being required to give money to the guy on the street corner needs polishing, because a private company can be distinguished from a government entity, but a government entity (service provider) cannot correctly be compared to a beggar.
Just ask the SCOTUS. I'm telling you, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL WAY for the government to REQUIRE you or anyone else to purchase ANYTHING from a private entity. Think about it. If allowed, the government could then force you to buy a house in order to support the home building industry. They could force you to buy pork - even if you're a Muslim or a Jew (as long as they don't require you to touch or eat it) to support the pork industry.
Such a requirement would negate any claim to personal freedom of any kind.
You might not like it, but the healthcare plan, as it now stands will be overturned with the first court challenge.
... political contributions.
Or do you not think the Roberts Court would rule so narrowly as to protect the very precedent they set?
And you're throwing up ridiculous examples to prove your point: show me where owning a home is necessary to the general welfare. Or enjoying a nice pulled pork sandwich.
They're not. At the same time, if the government decides to operate a pig farm, then it would be legal to require Muslims and Jews to buy bacon, right?
What do you think "corporation" means?
Regardless what you THINK, there is no CONSTITUTIONAL basis for the government to REQUIRE anyone to buy ANYTHING from a private entity, and for damn good reason.
I don't think that there is any Constitutional way for the fed to enact a public option. States are different. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution that allows the fed to do it? And no the general welfare clause of Sec 1 Clause 8 doesn't count, the USSC has ruled that clause is the reason for the enumerated powers not an unlimited power afforded to congress. Now if they would only do the same for the commerce clause.
for ANY federal law that any state does not want to comply with.
has used the commerce clause, which imo has been abused beyond belief to enact laws that apply to the states. See the CA medical marijuana laws for a start, the feds have arrested and prosecuted growers under federal law because marijuana moves in interstate commerce. It doesn't matter if it was grown and sold/used instate, but because marijuana in general does move interstate Congress has the power to regulate it. Or see the USSC case which imo screwed states and individual rights by determining that the fed gov can limit the amount of grain a farmer can grow for his own personal use, because by growing it for himself he is not buying it on the open market, and since the open market for the grain moves in interstate commerce they are allowed to.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942...
The general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. United States v. Butler, 27 U.S. 1 (1936).
In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), the Court applied that view to the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935. The Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. AFAIK, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Thanks for the citations.
people often confuse what they think is correct with what is legal.
... n'est-ce pas?
United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
From butler
. In Article I, § 8, cl. 1 of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall have power
"the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" is not an independent provision empowering Congress generally to provide for the general welfare, but is a qualification defining and limiting the power "to lay and collect taxes,"
"The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers."
. . . and referenced in the Butler opinion.
But it was not the winning argument. After noting it's review of the historical writings (of which this argument was only a part), the Court stated:
The Court sided with Alexander Hamilton and Justice Story.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
He is just another Republican trying to figure out a way to steal more money out of the Government coffers. A thieving Republican.
I still have all of these years and years can't figure out why about 80% of American voters don't understand who these Republicans represent! They stand up and fight tooth and nail for the top 10% and 180 degrees aginst the bottom 90% and half of the bottom 90% thinks they are fighting for them. I have never understood and never will.
If any of you are old enough to remember Lester Maddox then you know the tale. THIS clown in doing a GREAT impersonation of Lester, one of the biggest racist this country has ever seen.. On top of being a racist, it seems this guy is also actually stupid ! Huumm... How could the republicans get so lucky?? Stupid and racist all in one..
He may be the new sidekick on beck's programs!!!
cowboy shirt, 10-gallon hat, some fuzzy chaps, and shiny two-toned boots. I wanna see that!
How do these lying, uneducated, morons get voted in??
Bring it on!
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness!
Then sign this petition!!
http://www.change.org/actions/view/authoritar...
best interests in mind. dumbass
He is definitely another Reslug closet pervert.
Glad to see U. of VA. students out protesting the anti-gay actions of both the Guv and AG. Maybe they'll realize what the modern VA GOP really is.
when a Republican does it doncha know you betcha!
The purple with a bluish cast Commonwealth of Virginia is morphing into another red as the scarlet Chi-Com flag Republic of Texas, but without any of the advantages ( ?? ) of Texas, like the possibility of easy egress into the relatively sane Republic of Mexico.
Forty-plus years of almost entirely RethugliKKKan rule, including Clinton and Obama, of the USA has racked ruin upon Virginia. The GOPper defunded insane asylum has been taken over by the inmates. The end is nigh !!
Looks like an auspicious time to plan my escape ...
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
"I'm sure the irony of that doesn't even penetrate through his dense little birther skull."
Good luck with that. His skull seems to be comprised of pure Conservitarium - an element so dense that nothing can penetrate it.
If you place too many conservatives in close proximity (e.g. CPAC), the result is an ideological black hole - a singularity of stupidity from which all rational thought that gets too close is sucked in, never to be seen again...
There is a related element, Glennbeckium that is even more dense, and highly unstable, to boot.
don't pay attention to anything about the candidates. The Cuc was a well known nutjob before he ran. The Gov will have to muzzle him soon and hide him in the closet. He has further aspirations and doesn't want this kind of nuttiness to scare new business away. All this will just help the Dems in the elections in Nov.
Can you imagine what would have happened to states that demanded to be excluded from the interstate highway program? They would have begged for highways just a few years later.
Its called campaigning for re-election.
With Article VI and Amendment XIV does he even have standing to sue?
He would at the least need allies in control of the state legislature and executive, to make it a government issue.
Sounds like the state needs to order a recall, or he's gonna cost them a bundle in unneccessary legal fees.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Virginia's pretty boy AG is simply auditioning to be on the Palin ticket, that's all. You know, the dumb and dumber in 2012....
You lost you A hole , you are not in power or in control , get over it .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
gives congress the power to create and enforce it's own administrative rules, the courts have nothing to say about it. indeed, the USSC has always refused certiori for any cases dealing with this issue, for that exact reason.
mr. cuccinelli, and all the other state AG's, who claim they'll file suit, are blowing smoke up everyone's skirt. unless they're totally inept attorneys, they know the snowball has a better chance in hell.
however, that's not their real purpose. their real (and successful) purpose is to gain free publicity for themselves. the same reason rush blurts out idiotic, easily disprovable comments. and beck, coulter, malkin, et al.
a private person, in a class action suit will. The result will be the same.
No court will hear it unless the petitioner has standing.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Clock is ticking on the moment Cuccinelli goes all "Ted Haggard" over his weirdly dapper self.
I'm guessing less than a year before the sound-bite of his family and friends going, "We never knew!"
Public employees in CA do not retire at age 50 with 100% pension and bennies paid for by taxpayers. This is how you liars dupe the stupid. First of all, public employees PAY into their retirement and you cannot retire at age 50.
Until the day when we on the left take all elections seriously, clowns like this continue to seep into public office.
It's a contest of who can get their names into the Faux News circular news system.
When Cuccinelli was running for office I saw a video clip of some rally he was speaking at where he said when he's elected his first priority would be to do everything in his power against "this administration". Not only is it wrong that this a priority but that this is his first priority!?
Cuccinelli has always scared me more than McDaniel does this why I made sure I voted in the last Va. race, even though Deeds was far from my first choice. All I know is a good amount of the Democrats that didn't even come out to vote at all are the ones protesting what Virginia's Governor and AG are doing.
It's like all he's in office to do is set back the clocks on everything done for anyone who is not a wealthy, white heterosexual male. I wonder if he would try to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment if he could get away with it.
It's only barely three months into thier administration, we (Virginians) have a long road ahead of us.
That's right you idiot. Give the American public lots and lots of pointless legal fees with your useless lawsuit.
Comments are closed on this entry