Friday, April 30, 2010
There goes Walter, best there ever was
Here's to you, Walter Jones, the best Seahawk of all time and maybe the best offensive lineman ever. Also my favorite 'Hawk of all time. Congrats on the retirement, and thanks for getting us to the Super Bowl.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
In which I tangle with the Washington attorney general
The first thing I should say about these lawsuits being filed by attorneys general around the country in attempt to stop the health care reform law is that they are a complete waste of time with no chance of succeeding. Anybody who has spent any time learning about the Constitution and the Commerce Clause knows this; you'll only find disagreement among people who either (a) disagree with the Commerce Clause jurisprudence and want it to change, (b) intentionally misrepresent Commerce Clause jurisprudence for the sake of riling up conservatives and scoring political points, or (c) both. Anyone who takes a dispassionate look at the caselaw will tell you that the health care law is constitutional.
Put another way, the only way these attorneys general will win is if they convince the court to overrule decades of precedent. If the court simply follows precedent, they're toast.
This is why it is so disappointing to see AGs like Washington's Rob McKenna dragging his state into this mess. McKenna is a bright guy, so it appears his involvement is inspired purely by politics. Or so I thought, before today's interactive chat on the Seattle Times website.
I joined the chat, hoping to get an answer from him about how he would handle precedent like Wicker (the "Hay Case") and Raich (the "Marijuana Case"). Both cases held that under the constitution's Commerce Clause, congress had the power to regulate noneconomic, instrastate activities when those activities might undercut its regulation of interstate commerce. Under those cases, there's no way the health care act isn't constitutional.
It took a while but I finally got through for a little exchange with the AG. You can go to the chat, and keep an eye out for "geezer." In short, I questioned his competence; he asked me for citations; I provided them; he didn't respond. He'll have to respond eventually, and... good luck with that.
Put another way, the only way these attorneys general will win is if they convince the court to overrule decades of precedent. If the court simply follows precedent, they're toast.
This is why it is so disappointing to see AGs like Washington's Rob McKenna dragging his state into this mess. McKenna is a bright guy, so it appears his involvement is inspired purely by politics. Or so I thought, before today's interactive chat on the Seattle Times website.
I joined the chat, hoping to get an answer from him about how he would handle precedent like Wicker (the "Hay Case") and Raich (the "Marijuana Case"). Both cases held that under the constitution's Commerce Clause, congress had the power to regulate noneconomic, instrastate activities when those activities might undercut its regulation of interstate commerce. Under those cases, there's no way the health care act isn't constitutional.
It took a while but I finally got through for a little exchange with the AG. You can go to the chat, and keep an eye out for "geezer." In short, I questioned his competence; he asked me for citations; I provided them; he didn't respond. He'll have to respond eventually, and... good luck with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
