Exclusive: Interview with Wisconsin AG on ObamaCare lawsuit
posted at 8:46 am on March 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Yesterday, Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen announced that he would seek authorization from the legislature or the Governor to file a lawsuit to block the federal government from enforcing the individual mandate in his state. Van Hollen explained that in Wisconsin, the AG doesn’t have the ability to represent the state in such an action unless specifically authorized by constitutional authorities — and since the Governor and leaders of both chambers of the legislature are Democrats, the politics of getting that authorization appear difficult. In an exclusive interview with Hot Air, Van Hollen explains how he plans to proceed once authorized to act, whether that happens now or after the next election in November:
Given the debate even among conservative attorneys on the prospects for getting the mandate overturned in federal court, I asked Van Hollen to explain his legal strategy, assuming he gets authorization to proceed, in overcoming what will likely be skepticism from the federal courts. Van Hollen felt very optimistic that the unique and unprecedented nature of the mandate would make for a compelling argument for overturning at least those portions of the system. “No federal court, including the Supreme Court, has ever ruled” on the notion of Congress requiring residents to buy a service in order to remain in the US, and such a mandate “just to exist” would render meaningless the balance of power between Washington and the states.
Of course, just to get to that lawsuit, Van Hollen has to get authorization from the Democrats to sue. Van Hollen said that he could wait for a new Governor or the next session of the legislature, but Van Hollen believes that even the current legislature will feel motivated to act. After all, an encroachment on state sovereignty comes at the cost of the legislature itself. Governor Jim Doyle even asked Van Hollen to file an amicus brief in another case of federal pre-emption, and has never balked at fighting encroachment by Washington before now.
The AGs filing lawsuits around the country must see some prospects for victory in court action; Van Hollen explains why they believe it. The key: Van Hollen thinks that the courts may be looking for a case that will allow them to curtail Congress’ increasingly expansive treatment of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Be sure to watch the entire interview.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Doorgunner, this from the one who believes that you are a retarded rube…and believes we all are.
Schadenfreude on March 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM
While I agree, a word of caution – don’t get smug – it doesn’t take much to surpass that one.
Schadenfreude on March 26, 2010 at 1:57 PM
OT/ I just got a robo call from Dave Obey to join him in a telephone town hall to discuss health care. Unbelievable. He has hidden from the citizens of Wisconsin throughout the health care debate and now he wants to talk about it? Here’s my answer-Sean Duffy.
scorpio9 on March 26, 2010 at 2:06 PM
Yes, of course – but if she is going to claim to be in ‘Law school’, she had better be willing to back that up.
The fact that she isn’t should be telling to all.
Chip on March 26, 2010 at 2:10 PM
The same holds true for the 2nd amendment – It’s during a national emergency that you need a means of self defense more than ever.
The 2nd amendment isn’t about duck hunting – it’s about you ability to defend yourself, your family and others when the Schummer hits the fan.
Chip on March 26, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Touche!
venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 3:13 PM
As illustrated by the fact that the guy suing in the Chicago gun case before the Court now is from the South Side and wants to own a gun to protect himself from the local gangs. Yeah, he could end up being more of a danger to himself than the gangs, but, you know what, he wants to take that risk to protect his family and the Constitution gives him the right to do so. As someone once posted here, the cops aren’t there to stop you from getting hurt by criminals, they’re there to catch the criminals after you’ve been hurt. First line of defense has to be self-defense, obviously.
venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 3:17 PM
blockquote>What does a poll of WI residents say about this? Are they in favor of moving forward with this? If so, then get on the horn to the legislators there and allow the AG to proceed.
Heck yes, we are! I’ve already contacted him to voice my support!
He’s gonna need luck with Doyle, though.
There are more conservatives here than you think. The problem is, were all busy working, while the glue-sniffing, welfare-eating liberals took over the state government in Madison, and do anything to keep their power. Just read up on the vandalism done to Republican party property by democrat workers and those mysterious extra”votes” they get out of nowhere.
Acorn must have been busy in Wisconsin, too.
Sterling Holobyte on March 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM
LOL.
crr6 on March 26, 2010 at 4:04 PM
You know nothing about me, other than the fact that I attend law school. So this is all laughable. In any event, I guarantee you my first year salary+bonus when I graduate will make your earnings look like chicken scratch. There’s a reason business school is generally less respected than law school. From your posts, you’re clearly vaguely aware of that fact, and very insecure about it.
crr6 on March 26, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Simply telling you where I go to school wouldn’t back anything up. What would “back that up”?
crr6 on March 26, 2010 at 4:14 PM
crr6 on March 26, 2010 at 4:04 PM
That was pretty funny.
Firefly_76 on March 26, 2010 at 4:18 PM
It would add credibility to your ‘Legend’ as it were.
Have you come up with an answer to that yet?
Or are you willing to concede that The fact you National Socialist Democrat Moonbats would rather just pretend to follow constitutional law while seeking to undermine it until the point that is meaningless.
Chip on March 26, 2010 at 4:23 PM
Yes, exactly, confiscating firearms form the law-abiding is absurd in times of emergencies.
That’s when you really need the ability to defend yourself.
Hey! crr6, how are you set in terms self-defense capability?
Chip on March 26, 2010 at 4:29 PM
Toasty feet over an open fire,
Jack Frost nipping at the nose….
unclesmrgol on March 26, 2010 at 4:57 PM
Could’a fooled me….
Things are getting a little personal here, and that needs to stop. crr6, you brought that upon yourself by trying to get the upper hand in an argument by claiming superior education.
“Superior education” (even if only partly completed) doesn’t fly here — what does fly here are the facts you can bring to bear in debate and the skill you use in presenting those facts. As much as I disagree with Jimbo (another example of a person claiming to be in law), he appears to have a much sounder legal education than you do, and given the resources he’s shown in debate, I suspect you have a bit of growing to do before you become someone who shows his logic that way.
The distilled free advice: Can the law school bit and debate on the merits.
Given the temper of this country right now, and the fact that Wisconsin is a volatile state, I suspect that the Democratic Governor and Legislature are in for a bruising if they stand in the way.
unclesmrgol on March 26, 2010 at 5:17 PM
As the sole prerequisite to the individual mandate is existence, there is only one “opt out” option which does not attract a penalty. (And people thought Palin’s use of “death panels” was a stretch!)
Barnestormer on March 26, 2010 at 5:38 PM
heh. I don’t see how. And it would make me lose anonymity.
Why don’t you tell me who you are, what you do, and where you do it?
If you don’t, you’re a loser and a fraud.
See how that works?
crr6 on March 26, 2010 at 5:39 PM
I know.
crr6 on March 26, 2010 at 5:41 PM
No, Obama will rule that the Wisconsinites are interrupting commerce, and by the power invested in him through the Commerce Clause, will usurp the governor’s authority and order the Wisconsin National Guard to mow down anyone not branded with Obama666 on their foreheads or right hand.
darwin on March 26, 2010 at 5:46 PM
The “Millennials” are quite a set, are they not? 79% think themselves more intelligent than average; 75% more attractive than average. They believe they will earn nearly six figures right out of college.
So as it turns out, crr6, you’re just average for your generation: a legend in your own mind.
Grace_is_sufficient on March 26, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Personally, & from all the people I’ve ever met, lawyers rate right above dog crap in opinion. Some even lower than that.
I know there are good lawyers out there, as well as politicians. But they are probably rare creatures.
It’s hard not to get caught up in the corruption that are court systems have become.
And it should not take a lawyer to exercise your rights or educate yourself about them.
The founding documents are straight forward. No lawyer is needed to read & understand or interpret them.
The lawyer class has turned this business into a joke.
But a serious joke.
Lawyers like to define & redefine in order to manipulate the outcome.
So something does not have to be true necesaarily, as long as you win.
I have never met a lawyer I ever could respect. But I am sure there are some out there.
But just bcs you are going to perhaps graduate someday as a lawyer, does not mean you will be a good one.
Badger40 on March 26, 2010 at 6:20 PM
I teach them.
They think they’re pretty hot stuff.
But I love when they come back to me & say I was right abt the real world.
No one cares if they got ribbons of participation or that they mommy thinks their special.
You actually have to work your way up.
I have had teaching seminars where they are telling us how sensitive we have to be w/ this generation to which I reply “AnninCaing THAT!”
I am compassionate, but firm. No one owes you anything & anything you will ever become is solely up to you.
Badger40 on March 26, 2010 at 6:22 PM
My spelling’s bad, but sorry. Today I don’t care.
Badger40 on March 26, 2010 at 6:23 PM
Since you’re a first year student and these tests are not too far in your rear-view mirror, I’ll tell you that I got the 99th percentile in the English portion of the GMAT, which is basically the same as the entire LSAT, with some slightly more advanced logical reasoning questions being the difference, with the LSAT having them and the GMAT not having them. Given that my undergraduate degree was in Classics with a heavy dose of philosophy and logic, I would hazard a guess that if I took the LSAT, I’d also get the 99th percentile without breaking a sweat. All of the lawyers I associate with socially also scored similarly and went to law schools where such scores are de rigueur. So, you’ll forgive me for not being impressed by whatever chump school you attend, whether it be law, medicine, business or clown college.
The decision not to attend a law school where LSAT scores of that level are required for admission was purely personal, in that I don’t really enjoy law.
As for salary, who makes more a first-year Harvard MBA or a graduate of your law school? Because Harvard MBAs and those from my business school make basically the same first year out because we all went to work for the same firms. Some Harvard MBAs go into private equity and skew their numbers a bit.
venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 6:44 PM
Yeah, because a couple of people joking around on a blog is EXACTLY the same as giving someone tenure at a university for the sole reason that they agree with your politics and then praising their work in academic journals.
Priorities.
venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 6:53 PM
Umm. I make a decent living as an attorney. But not that great. I know for a fact that I am well above the median income because I was out there a couple years ago to try to move to another city. I was appalled at the average income for attorneys. There was no way I could make a lateral move. I hope your optimism is well placed, but it ain’t that grand out there. Right now it’s a blood bath, and only the tip-top talent get the salaries you have in mind. Even then, they have to start producing really quickly or else they are out standing in line with the rest of the chumps. I also advise that you go into whatever it is that you have a passion for, because lawyers get to wallow around in a lot of crap, and the money alone is not worth it.
I know you like to hang around here and tweak us whenever you can, and for the most part it appears to be in good nature and fun. But I really hope you’re being realistic on your prospects.
Oh. And if you do get your dream salary, let us know how you feel when you see almost half of your check swallowed up by Social Security, and state and federal taxes. You’ll be wondering why you are spending 80 hours per week poring over your four billionth deposition transcript.
ObjectionSustained on March 26, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Oh I know it’s a tough market out there, but I’ve been fortunate enough to place at the tippy-top of my class, so at 2L OCI I should be able to have a pick from either the prestigious govt. positions (DOJ Honors etc) or Biglaw. My school places very well in both.
I did a little research, and found the average salary for grads of the top 5 business schools (where you say you went) make around 130-145k when they graduate, on average. In contrast, the average starting salary for lawyers who go into the private sector at my school is 160k. And that doesn’t include bonuses.
crr6 on March 26, 2010 at 8:40 PM
These states, especially the Northern ones, have been feeding at the Federal bowl for over 100 years. They and their various cities have never batted an eye at receiving Federal bailouts courtesy of American taxpayers from all across the country when their Dem/Socialist schemes drove them to bankruptcy. They were in cahoots with the Feds in setting up monopolies including the creation of the ICC, cracking down on union workers, allowed the Mafia and bootleggers to do as they pleased, got their share of the pork including probably unneeded military installations, and God knows what else.
Now they’re in a position where the Fed has given and now the Fed wants to take away. They never had a problem with receiving, nor with cow-towing to the Liberal handout policies if they are Republicans in order to increase their chances of getting elected. Now they’re singing the blues. Who in their right mind would trust the state Dems in this given that they supported The One and the Dem-controlled Congress that got us into this mess, or the GOPers who failed their traditional values when they were in charge? These Liberal Federal judges will surely force these cases to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court—they must at least know that. And what if the Court won’t hear these cases?
Dr. ZhivBlago on March 26, 2010 at 10:33 PM
I’m not claiming to be a “law-student” etc., as someone else said , YOU are the one that is Constantly using your supposed status as a “law-student” as a cudgel against others on the board.
How would naming where you supposedly go to “law-school”give up some of your anonymity anyways?
Unless you are at a “law-school” with a very small student body.
The bottom line is that if you were a “law-student” at a know law school, you wouldn’t have a reason to at least mention that, but you don’t because you aren’t.
Lastly,are you EVER going to come up with an intelligent response to some of my original questions?
Chip on March 26, 2010 at 10:59 PM
crr6, I am not trying to pick on you personally, but I am hoping to get some incite into how you think. You seem to be a fairly committed liberal, and you seem to have come down on the side of redistributive justice. I suspect that you are one of those who believe that equal access to health care is a moral imperative that trumps most other ethical considerations.
So my question is this: Assuming you are telling us all the truth about your academic credentials and career prospects, how do you square what appears to be an unbridled ambition to succeed with its concomitant perks, prestige and high salaries with your vision of social justice? How do you justify your expected lifestyle when you compare it to, say, your high school classmates who, by accident of birth, were not as intellectually gifted as you claim to be and who had to settle for a lesser standard of living? Is there ever going to be a point when you look down from your lofty perch and say, “I have enough”? How will you know when you are there?
At what point will your less fortunate mates be entitled their resentments toward you? And where is the line to be drawn between what you get to keep and what others are entitled to confiscate from you?
What about your own moral compass? Why are you going for prestigious, high-salaried positions when you could just as easily do legal work for the indigent at minimal compensation? Why not go to a rural setting and be a work-a-day attorney that argues tort by day and serves cookies at the PTA meeting at night?
Is it OK to hold power over other people, but not money and material wealth? If not, how do I tax your accumulated power so that I may enjoy a more level playing field with you? Is power and political influence somehow less filthy than accumulated wealth? How do you know?
Do you believe that your heart is so uncharitable that you must be forced by government coercion to help the less fortunate? Do you need to be taxed because you just cannot summons the joy that comes from cheerful giving? Perhaps your intentions are better than your fellow achievers, and if they were just more like you, then we wouldn’t need marginal tax rates. Is that it? You hold yourself out to a higher moral authority, but just don’t trust that others are as evolved as you are?
How does Zarathustra come to terms with Super Saint?
ObjectionSustained on March 27, 2010 at 1:39 AM
insight. gack.
ObjectionSustained on March 27, 2010 at 1:42 AM
Since high salaries for graduating law students takes wealth from the hands of those who would otherwise spend it and engage in commerce … I see no reason why Congress shouldn’t use the commerce clause to regulate their salaries. I would think at the very least a 50% reduction would be in order. Wealth taken out of the hands of such high priced attorneys and redistributed would immediately stimulate commerce and make democrats and liberals very happy.
darwin on March 27, 2010 at 8:37 AM
Excellent points, are you Dr. Z in disguise?
Chip on March 27, 2010 at 9:08 AM
Oh, I know there’s NO WAY, she can or will respond to you two with kind of logical thought.
Stick a fork in crr6, she’s done.
Chip on March 27, 2010 at 9:09 AM
Typical of your research methods, it’s shoddy. Averages are not the right metric when comparing two groups with different levels of homogeneity, medians are.
Since lawyers going into the private sector are more homogeneous in their options (law firm or corporate law groups), the average and median salary will be closer. Since b-school grads go into a more disparate set of jobs from non-profits to marketing to corporate finance to hedge funds to start-ups (no pay, all equity) to family businesses to consulting to investment banking, the median and the average will be more dispersed.
And, it takes two years to do a business degree, so the ROI is much higher, even given your average numbers.
Anyway, by process of deduction, I’m about 90% sure I know where you go to school. As I’ve said, I’ve spent my entire adult life either attending or interacting socially with people who’ve attended all of the “elite” colleges and universities in the US, so I have a pretty intimate knowledge of what each one is known for and excels in, so deducing where you go wasn’t really that difficult. I have no interest in revealing where I think it is. It’s definitely better for law than business, but, again, frankly, wouldn’t have been on my list of schools to apply to had I gone the law route.
The more important thing is that your argument (yes, I know you are using an argument based on someone else’s opinion, but whatever) about the Heart of Atlanta case is not applicable in the context of the individual mandate because the hotel in that case was already engaged in interstate commerce, so their not engaging in commerce with minorities was a different sort of not engaging in commerce than not buying health insurance is and to make the argument that they are the same type of non-engagement in commerce is to expand the universe of activities which fall under the category “commerce” and, hence, under the regulatory thumb of Congress, to infinity. Whether you want to recognize that implicit logic of your position or not doesn’t change the fact that it is there. Those who see it and bring that up in the context of discussing the merits of your position are not going to simply trust you that, in the future, someone won’t come along and say “You know what else is engaging in commerce…” and attempt to force whatever activity it is they want to force people to do. You’re asking the Court to simply ignore the 800-lb. gorilla in the room on your say-so.
You want the Court to open up this giant can of worms because you think it is a worthy goal and your intentions are good. Well, f*ck you and f*ck your intentions, I prefer to live in a country where I don’t have a free-floating contingent liability to the central government, which they can call in by simply re-defining whatever action they want to as “commerce”. You want to live in some Chavezian nightmare where that’s the norm? Fine, I’ll take some of that MBA money I make and pay for your ticket.
venividivici on March 27, 2010 at 10:54 AM
High praise, indeed.
And vinividi, I too scored in the upper 90′s on my GMAT. If I had it to do over again, I probably would have gone the MBA route. There are more options available after graduation, and the upside income potential is much greater than a law degree provides. Except for the very few, not many attorneys escape the static salary structure. The percentage who make it to senior partner in a prestigious law firm is pretty small. Not to mention the disappointment crr5 will face when she realizes that the attorneys in the big firms are bigger ***holes to each other than they are to opposing counsel (has something to do with those rare senior partner slots). It’s just the nature of the beast.
ObjectionSustained on March 27, 2010 at 11:52 AM
crr5? She was demoted? Ok, yes, she will be disappointed … but I have no doubt she’ll be able to change the status quo.
So far crr5 has championed social justice, economic justic, health insurance justice and enviromental justice. Next on her list … Ass Hole justice.
darwin on March 27, 2010 at 12:18 PM
Trying to ease her into marginal tax structures…
ObjectionSustained on March 27, 2010 at 2:08 PM
crr6 is a punk! An arrogant punk, at that. Who gives a rat’s backside about some supercillious sack of hot air? Still in school – must have a guarantee to graduate and perform like all of the other punk lawyers I have had the misfortuna to have had in my life. Some can’t even shine their goddam shoes!
LarryG on March 28, 2010 at 1:16 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2