• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mckenna says he will sue over Health Care Legislation

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You got to love our Attorney General here in Washington State.......Washington is one of the most blue states in the union but our attorney general is a republican and he is filing a law suit against Obama Care with out informing the left wing liberal governor we have

God Bless him..........



McKenna Says He'll Sue Over Health Care Legislation Kitsap Sun

22 March 2010

OLYMPIA — Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna said Monday that he will join a multi-state challenge to the constitutionality of a health care overhaul bill passed by Congress.

The announcement by McKenna, a Republican, angered Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, who said that McKenna did not consult with her, House Speaker Frank Chopp or Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, all Democrats, before making his decision.

“I don’t know who he represents,” she said. “He doesn’t represent me.”

As the chief legal officer for the state, the attorney general typically represents state officials or agencies. However, he is a statewide elected official who, under state law, can bring lawsuits on behalf of the citizens of the state.

McKenna said he believes the measure passed Sunday night by the House “unconstitutionally imposes new requirements on our state and on its citizens.”



Read more: McKenna Says He'll Sue Over Health Care Legislation Kitsap Sun
 
He will lose and in doing so he will squander the state's budget on a nuisance lawsuit intended to serve his own political ambitions instead of the interests of his constituents. Shame on Rob McKenna.
 
He will lose and in doing so he will squander the state's budget on a nuisance lawsuit intended to serve his own political ambitions instead of the interests of his constituents. Shame on Rob McKenna.

That's ironic considering many Democrats voted on expensive money wasting legislation to serve their own political ambitions instead of the interests of their constituents. More power to the man for sticking up for justice and giving the majority of Americans a voice through a legal battle.
 
He will lose and in doing so he will squander the state's budget on a nuisance lawsuit intended to serve his own political ambitions instead of the interests of his constituents. Shame on Rob McKenna.

You a lawyer and know more then the top layer in the state the Attorney General now huh?:rofl

I know you lefties love socialism and communism but somehow to me it does seem right that the government forces and person to have health insurance and if they don't they get fined for not having it.........
 
The only winners here will be the lawyers who get rich, charging the states beaucoup bucks for their services.
 
Rob McKenna will be the next GUBNER of Washington......;)
You heard it here first.....;)
 
Here is why this will be shot down in the Supreme Court:

Helvering v. Davis, which, in 1937, ruled that the Social Security Act was Constitutional.

It is a fascinating case. You can read about it here.

The authority of the Federal government to turn something as repugnant as this health care bill into law is based on settled law, and the Supremes won't touch it. As a matter of fact, they would see this as a frivolous lawsuit. So would the lower courts. Any lawsuit in this area doesn't stand a chance. All you can do now is bend over and take it, while voting to unseat those in Congress who supported it.
 
Last edited:
You a lawyer and know more then the top layer in the state the Attorney General now huh?:rofl
Apparently he ISNT such a top-notch lawyer. Missing something like Helvering v Davis is pretty big and if he plans to basically make himself a legal nuisance until something happens, he should ask Orly Taitz how well that works out.
 
Here is why this will be shot down in the Supreme Court:

Helvering v. Davis, which, in 1937, ruled that the Social Security Act was Constitutional.

It is a fascinating case. You can read about it here.

The authority of the Federal government to turn something as repugnant as this health care bill into law is based on settled law, and the Supremes won't touch it. As a matter of fact, they would see this as a frivolous lawsuit. So would the lower courts. Any lawsuit in this area doesn't stand a chance. All you can do now is bend over and take it, while voting to unseat those in Congress who supported it.

I don't agree. Social Security fell under the right to dictate taxes.

This new socialism bill requires everyone to get health insurance by simply living in the United States. That has never been tried before the Supreme Court.
 
I don't agree. Social Security fell under the right to dictate taxes.

This new socialism bill requires everyone to get health insurance by simply living in the United States. That has never been tried before the Supreme Court.
No but it's held up in half a dozen states that require car insurance.
 
You got to love our Attorney General here in Washington State.......Washington is one of the most blue states in the union but our attorney general is a republican and he is filing a law suit against Obama Care with out informing the left wing liberal governor we have

God Bless him..........

Yeah...you gotta love those activist Attorney Generals that spend the states money, as if it their own, going against the wishes of the state. God bless you Navy...your inconsistency is always charming.
 
Here is why this will be shot down in the Supreme Court:

Helvering v. Davis, which, in 1937, ruled that the Social Security Act was Constitutional.

It is a fascinating case. You can read about it here.

The authority of the Federal government to turn something as repugnant as this health care bill into law is based on settled law, and the Supremes won't touch it. As a matter of fact, they would see this as a frivolous lawsuit. So would the lower courts. Any lawsuit in this area doesn't stand a chance. All you can do now is bend over and take it, while voting to unseat those in Congress who supported it.

Social security does not require all Americans to buy anything from a private company. It is a tax. I know of no other law that requires all Americans to buy anything from private companies.

Car insurance does not compare on several counts.

1. It is a state mandate, not federal.
2. Only required if you own a car.
3. Only required to protect other citizens due to your negligence.
 
No but it's held up in half a dozen states that require car insurance.

First of all, those are STATES. Secondly, the state isn't mandating that you buy a car. Completely unrelated.
 
3. Only required to protect other citizens due to your negligence.

Also, it protects the bank's interests if you are making payments.
 
Also, it protects the bank's interests if you are making payments.

That is the norm with any asset under contractual debt. However, that is not the main reason for auto liability.
 
It's ironic isn't it that the opponents attacking the mandate to purchase private health insurance wouldn't have a leg to stand on if the legislation instead implemented the public option as most liberals wanted?
 
Last edited:
That is the norm with any asset under contractual debt. However, that is not the main reason for auto liability.

Nor did I say it was. I was just adding to the list before.

The point is, you don't have to buy a car, and the government can't mandate that you do.

Likewise, the constitution does not mandate that you buy health insurance just because you choose to breath.
 
I don't recall the Massachusetts mandate that Sen. Scott Brown voted for and Gov. Mitt Romney signed into law has yet been overturned in any court. I'm sure they must be getting around to that.
 
It's ironic isn't it that the opponents are attacking the mandate to purchase private health insurance wouldn't have a leg to stand on if the legislation instead implemented the public option as most liberals wanted?

Uh, no, the states could sue for the same reason.
 
I don't recall the Massachusetts mandate that Sen. Scott Brown voted for and Gov. Mitt Romney signed into law has yet been overturned in any court. I'm sure they must be getting around to that.

First, it was a state deal. Second, no one has challenged it.

And third, Massachusetts has the highest premiums in the country, and the program is already bankrupt. LOL
 
I think this is actually good. It will give us all an idea of legitimately what can and can't be done with regards to health care. This is what reform is about.
 
First, it was a state deal. Second, no one has challenged it.

And third, Massachusetts has the highest premiums in the country, and the program is already bankrupt. LOL

Funny how there's no serious talk of repeal; Scott Brown isn't in favor of repeal, for example. For all the costs involved, the people of Massachusetts appear to be satisfied that the goal of near universal coverage has been achieved.
 
Funny how there's no serious talk of repeal; Scott Brown isn't in favor of repeal, for example. For all the costs involved, the people of Massachusetts appear to be satisfied that the goal of near universal coverage has been achieved.

Except, many can't afford it. LOL It's an utter disaster. They have the most expensive healthcare in the nation, and you call that success?

Mass. healthcare reform is failing us - The Boston Globe

Meanwhile, their state is flat broke, and healthcare is the reason.

Not to mention, a doctor shortage:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97620520

Yeah, that's what all 50 states need.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom