Looks Like We’re Gonna Need A New Attorney General
By Mitch Berg
Attorney General Lori Swanson has declined the Governor’s request to join the states sueing to stop Obamacare:
She pointed out in her letter to him that Pawlenty can always file his own friend-of-the-court brief to side with the states fighting the law.
That prompted this response from Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung: “Governor Pawlenty intends to participate in this litigation.” He refused to comment on whether the governor would file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting lawsuits filed by other states, hire his own lawyer or participate in some other way. “We are going to consider our options,” McClung said in an e-mail.
Hopefully that option includes finding someone to run for Attorney General to get the statist fossil Swanson out of there.
Yes, I said statist:
In rejecting the call for Minnesota to file a lawsuit, Swanson, in a written opinion, said Congress has wide latitude to pass laws to tax and spend and to regulate interstate commerce.
“Health care — which comprises over one-sixth of our country’s economy — substantially affects interstate commerce,” Swanson said. “The United States government has been involved for years in many aspects of health care, including Medicare and Medicaid.
“Interstate Commerce” has been the trojan horse that’s enabled the socialization and overregulation of far too much of our economies and lives, ever since FDR’s administration essentially repealed the Tenth Amendment seventy years ago.
Now we know what side Lori Swanson is on.
So we got any lawyers out there, MNGOP?
April 6th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
I’m speaking metaphorically, Scott.
Swanson is a worthless, leftist tool who has used the office she holds for nothing of substance…she might as well be doing something useful for someone…go iron some shirts for daddy.
As I understand it, the Gov can indeed appoint a law firm to represent the state. In 1985 Allen Page was appointed Special Assistant Attorney General.
April 6th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Gotta go with Swiftee on this one. Rick could justify the Holocaust if Democrats promoted it.
I stand corrected.
April 6th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
should have read “the Gov can indeed appoint a law firm, [or lawyer] to represent the state. In 1985 Alan Page was appointed Special Assistant Attorney General.”
April 6th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Well, swiftee, I certainly would support a special appointment to represent the state to challenge the federal government from mandating citizens buy a private product; I will defer to the burbots on the practicality and details.
April 6th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
So RickCP is arguing seriously that one can levy an excise on the REFUSAL to buy a product now?
If we could only hook up a generator to Madison spinning in his grave over that one……sorry, Rick, it’s a FINE, not a TAX, and it’s a fine levied for refusing to buy diapers at Wal-Mart, whether your family needs them or not. Any sane lawyer (and apparently Ms. Swanson is not in that group) should see why this is flat out illegal.
April 6th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
“I’m thinking about writing a script that adds a little warning before Rick’s posts;
“Warning; Mind-numbing obtusion ahead”…”
As you should with deegee/peevee/flush for their inability to actually hold any skepticism or criticism toward Obama.
Example from A-Boy blog:
“Is he perfect, not even close, and my expectations are modest.”</i. – Dog Gone
“I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama gets added to Mt. Rushmore…” – Dog Gone
Behold the blind adoration toward The Obamassiah!!
April 6th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Swiftee:
Special Assistant Attorney General is a just regular position in the AGs office. Page was just one of many many SPAGs over the years. They report to the AG, not to the Gov.
April 6th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Dog Gone- Your`re worried about “the costs of litigation from the 13 AGs”, but not the costs to the states if this piece of s–t continues down the path it`s going? Your`re kidding me, right?
April 6th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Yeah, yeah…what ever you say; dim-wit.
April 6th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
bubasan:
If people ever start showing up at the Emergency Room, getting $1 million in diapers, not paying their bill, and leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab, then Congress may have to take a look at your diaper bill.
April 6th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
RickDFL, where is the $3,000 you told me I would get when we got health care reform?
April 6th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
DickyDFL, are you claiming the Governor reports to the AG? Seriously?
April 6th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
RickDFL:
“The prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be strictly and narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept. The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, ”no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .”
See United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 442 -446 (1965). Four dissenting Justices, however, denied that any separation of powers concept underlay the clause. Id., 472-473; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315 (1946).
Q.E.D.
April 7th, 2010 at 7:34 am
K-Rod: No. Learn to read. I am claiming Special Assistant Attorney Generals (in Minnesota) report to the AG.
Nachman: U.S. v Brown deals with a penalty directed at a specific named group, members of the Communist Party, note the use of a name. As I said above that is a bill of attainder. That does not prevent Congress from passing laws that impose a burden or other duty on a generic group or category of people. The health care tax is levied on all people engaged in the activity of not having insurance, note the abscence of a name.
No one thinks it is a bill of attainder.
Terry:
The health care reform bill will modestly slow the growth of healthcare costs. To get the full savings you need to have a fully universal system and more serious cost controls. Sadly those were left out in deference to conservative desire to maintain the power and profits of the private insurance companies.
April 7th, 2010 at 7:52 am
Whole bunch of people thinking that if the AG won’t sue, then Pawlenty can’t either, it’s all GOP political grandstanding.
If Elli Lake had listened to her lawyer tell her that a hundred years of Minnesota law did not recognize the tort of invasion of privacy, WalMart would have gotten away with letting its employee publish her nude photo.
If Greg Wersal had listened to pretty much the entire Minnesota bench and bar telling him that Minnesota’s Code of Judicial Conduct over-rode his First Amendment right to campaign for judge, the United States Supreme Court wouldn’t have had to explain the law and we wouldn’t now be considering a major restructuring of the judicial selection system.
The AG is just the State’s public lawyer. The state can hire a different lawyer if they want to – see Mike Ciresi’s tobacco litigation case.
I doubt it’ll do the states much good to sue the federal government but hey, anybody can sue anybody for anything, right? Who knows – maybe the Court will find another fundamental right iprotected by the Constitution and tell the federal government to back off, as it did in Heller.
Or is that the fear, Rick?
.
April 7th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Nate:
a. Ciresi was hired by the AG – Skip Humphrey. Then Gov Carlson opposed the tobacco lawsuit.
b. I don’t want my tax dollars wasted on a frivilous lawsuit. You and your pals want to spend the money, have at it. Can’t think of a better possible use of your money.
April 7th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Silly Rick, talking about “my” tax dollars. I thought the official position was that the tax dollars belong to the State and we just get to hold the money for a little while, keeping a portion for ourselves. We call that portion “income” while the State views it as kind of a handling fee that we get; a fee it constantly whittles at.
April 7th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Night Writer:
I guess that is why Republicans waste tax dollars so freely.
April 7th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Rick:
“The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, ”no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .”
Aside from the language in the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, the wording of the fedral decision couldn’t be more clearer.
The “easily ascertainable members of a group” in the case of the “health reform bill” would be the class of citizens who do not purchase health insurance.
RickDFL stated:
“No one thinks it is a bill of attainder.”
Insult noted.
April 7th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Nachman:
You do not know what you are talking about. From the same decision:
“we make again the point made in Lovett: that Congress must accomplish such results by rules of general applicability. It cannot specify the people upon whom the sanction it prescribes is to be levied.”
Note the term “rules of general applicability”. That is what I refered to as “a generic group or category of people”.
Under your reading, any law imposing any burden on anyone is a bill of attainder.
April 7th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
RickDFL describes the bill he thinks only idiots don’t support:
sadly those were left out in deference to conservative desire to maintain the power and profits of the private insurance companies.
April 7th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
‘RickDFL describes the bill he thinks only idiots don’t support”
Really where did I say that?
April 7th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Thanks for the assist, Rick: the state CAN hire a different lawyer. Glad we agree.
My other points remain unrebutted; consequently, in accord with standard Progressive “logic,” your failure to rebut them means you concede them completely.
Well, [wipes hands] that was easy. Mitch, what’s next?
.
April 7th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Nate:
No one disputed Tim Pawlenty can direct the lawyers on his staff to write an amicus brief for his office. Hiring outside counsul would require money and I doubt the legislature is in a spending mood. I was just correcting your factual error about Ciresi. In addition, Humphrey was able to ‘hire’ Ciresi on a contingency basis (IIRC) not by paying him up front.
Finaly, not to be technical, but this is not a case of the “state” hiring “a different lawyer”. MN has an elected lawyer, the AG. She and only she can file an amicus brief on behalf of the State of MN or initiate a lawsuit on behalf of MN. The Gov can only file an amicus brief on behalf of his office and can not initiate or join a lawsuit.
April 7th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
RickDFL wrote:
“…[f]rom the same decision:
“we make again the point made in Lovett: that Congress must accomplish such results by rules of general applicability. It cannot specify the people upon whom the sanction it prescribes is to be levied.”
The government *has* specified the class to be punished. It is all people who have elected not to buy health insurance. Don’t want to buy health insurance? Here’s a tax on a product that you haven’t purchased. Here’s an excise tax on economic activity you haven’t engaged in.
FWIW, ust tell me if you’re a postmodernist, believe in critical social theory or deconstruction. If you do, then we’ll all call it a day.
And stop throwing insults around like monkey poo. Agreed?
April 7th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
RickDFL said:
“You do not know what you are talking about”
And it was funny.
April 7th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Nachman:
Suppose Congress specifies a group of people, “those who drive over 55 on a Federal Highway” and tries to fine them. Is that a bill of attainder?
I loath postmodernism, critical theory, and deconstruction. Your attempt to say that all laws are bills of attainder is just the sort of mumbo-jumbo in which they traffic.
April 7th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Now ‘Speed Limit” is a “product”. Way to rationalize RatioRinkyDinkDFL. Do you read what you write? No need to answer – it was a rhetorical question.
April 7th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
JPA:
“Now ‘Speed Limit” is a “product”.” No. Whether Congress can tax people for not purchasing a product under the Commerce Clause is one question.
Whether any law that imposes some harm on a set of people is a bill of attainder is another far wackier question Nachman has raised. You want to defend that claim have at it.
April 7th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Rick:
Congress does not have the authority to impose speed limits absent authority or jurisdiction over the territory involved. Example: Congress does not have the authority to impose a speed limit on Cedar Avenue. Congress does have the authority to impose a speed limit if it so chooses on a National Wildlife Refuge (ref. 16 USC 668dd-ee).
A speed limit is not the purchase of a product. Violating a speed limit in and of itself is not a purchase of goods or services, nor is it economic activity.
The US Congress cannot levy any tax on any citizen in the United States or its territory for choosing not to be involved in economic activity.
Punishing such a class of citizens without trial is a bill of attainder. Seizing their property pusuant to such an act by government is an unreasonable seizure. Both acts violate the US Constitution and are null and void.
April 8th, 2010 at 7:41 am
I’m delighted to learn Democrats now believe the opinions of goverment lawyers are entitled to complete deference – as will John Woo.
.
April 8th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Nachmann:
“A speed limit is not the purchase of a product. Violating a speed limit in and of itself is not a purchase of goods or services, nor is it economic activity.”
and that has nothing to do with whether it is a bill of attainder.
“The US Congress cannot levy any tax on any citizen in the United States or its territory for choosing not to be involved in economic activity.” which has nothing to to with whehter a proposed bill is a bill of attainder.
“Punishing such a class of citizens without trial is a bill of attainder” Not unless those citizens are picked out by name like Mitch Berg or members of the NRA. But Congress can levy taxes or penalites on general categories of people e.g. people who make over $250,000 a year, people who possess a car, or corporations that discharge waste into rivers.
April 8th, 2010 at 8:45 am
It’s like arguing with a goal post! Who was it who brought up Speed Limit as a simile for levying a fine for not buying a product? Go chase your tail, RatioRinkyDink.
April 8th, 2010 at 10:14 am
JPA:
The only thing moving is you and everyone else at SITD moving away from Nachmann’s claim that the healthcare excise tax is a bill of attainder. This crowd has a strong sense of solidarity, so it is pretty telling that no one here will defand that claim.
April 8th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Yes, Rick. It “tells” us that they’re tired of playing your niggling little word games. “Obtuse” is like hockey fights; it can be fun to howl (with derision or blood lust, as the case may be), but eventually you just want the actual game to start up again.
April 8th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
“The health care tax is levied on all people engaged in the activity of not having insurance,”
Wow, what next, dickheadDFL, a new sales tax on a product you didn’t buy?
April 8th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Rick – which Senate District are you in? Do you hold a party office?
April 16th, 2010 at 10:05 am
“So we got any lawyers out there, MNGOP?”
The GOP atty general candidate will be Dr. R. Christopher Barden of Edina