Exclusive: Interview with Wisconsin AG on ObamaCare lawsuit

VibrioCocci on March 26, 2010 at 9:22 AM

In the absence of a mandate, the health insurers might be able to argue that forcing them to take people with pre-existing conditions is like forcing life insurance companies to allow the descendants of dead people to sign the deceased up for life insurance or allowing people who’ve just been in accidents to sign up for auto insurance. I doubt the Federal government has that power. The mandate was supposed to be some kind of compensation to the insurance companies to mitigate the pre-existing conditions rule, so I can see why the insurers made a strategic decision to play along. Without the mandate, their incentive to play along is nil.

venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 10:25 AM

What would “arbitrarily” be defined as commerce? The purchase of health insurance?

The non-purchase of health insurance.

The only distinction would be non-action vs. action, which of course was dealt with in Heart of Atlanta.

Your assertion that this case provides a rationale for the individual mandate was already shown fallacious yesterday, so there’s no need to restate why it’s fallacious today.

Since you get all hot and bothered for Chemerinsky’s use of that case, and don’t seem to understand the logical implications of that use of that case, here’s a nice statement of it:

“As Professor Chemerinsky well knows, and case law makes abundantly clear, if something is in principle within the scope of congressional authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause, the particulars of such a regulation are reviewed by the courts under the rational basis test. To state the obvious, this is not a very exacting basis for judicial review. And, in general, if a failure to join health clubs is an economic activity – as it will be under Professor Chemerinsky’s definition of economic activity – then I would be the first one to admit that it would not be irrational for Congress to mandate health club membership. Indeed, it would be quite plausible for Congress to conclude that a vigorous physical exercise by all Americans would save hundreds of billions of dollars in medical costs and produce all sorts of other positive economic impacts.

This brings me back to the limiting factor issue and, what I suppose, would be my last bit of hyperbole in this debate. In a world where every human decision and activity amounts to an economic transaction, Congress’ Commerce Clause power is indeed infinitely capacious. To say that Congress has “no power to regulate outside of the area of economic transactions”, as Professor Chemerinsky does, isn’t to say much if everything is an economic transaction. This would be an interesting world and one that the Framers of the Constitution would not recognize.”

http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.35/default.asp

Seriously, God must hate you to not let you have been born in Cuba, where the government can just order people around based on its whims. Sucks to be you.

venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 11:13 AM

LOL. Yeah I must have missed the part where you said Heart of Atlanta is irrelevant. Did it, or did it not hold that non-action (not serving blacks) substantially affects interstate commerce? Of course the facts weren’t identical (they never are) but that principle is all I need out of the case.

I didn’t say it was “irrelevant” since it’s obviously one of the major Commerce Clause cases. As pointed out above, the hotel in question was ALREADY engaging in interstate commerce, so the principle is not the same. Unless, of course, you have an ideological bias toward an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, in which case, yes, you would argue that the principle is the same. As the quote I posted above states, the expansion of that principle is unlimited and, I and many others, quite frankly don’t want to concede that power to the Federal government. Plus, if the AG of Wisconsin is right and the Court is looking for a case to draw a line in the sand on the Commerce Clause, this one is tailor-made.

I look forward to your response, which will undoubtedly be precedent-free, and based on a Heritage Foundation post.

crr6 on March 26, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Says the person whose arguments completely consists of people from the other side of the political spectrum. Just because some jackhole sits in an endowed chair in a legal department doesn’t make him an objective observer.

Plus, I don’t believe in re-inventing the wheel. Plus, that’s yet another in a long line of ad hominem arguments. Jesus, that’s like the first AnninCAing logical fallacy they teach you in Logic 101 you dumb AnninCA.

venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Jeez, you must have been very “friendly” to the admissions officer at your law school to be admitted because your logic skills suck.

venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM

That wasn’t an ad hominem, it was a deduction based on the observation of your logic skills or lack of them, more precisely.

Damn, you are stupid. Yet, because of a screwed-up education system which teaches self-esteem uber alles you think you’re a genius. What a strange world we live in.

venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM

The Heritage Foundation is.

crr6 on March 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM

So? That somehow invalidates their analysis? Does that mean if Hitler once wrote that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, he’s wrong because he represents the wrong political viewpoint?

Analysis is either right or wrong but the answer to that question isn’t a political one, it’s an analytical one. Duh. Either Heritage is right or they’re wrong. If you think they’re wrong, say why. Since all you’ve done is argue from authority (yet another logical fallacy, obviously), are you surprised that your arguments hold no weight with anyone else?

Do you think you’re going to just be able to walk into a courtroom in the future and say “Your Honor, my opponent in this lawsuit’s lawyer has also written for and expressed sympathy with the political viewpoints of the Heritage Foundation” and the judge is going to dismiss the case?

You are AnninCAing laughably simplistic and have the mind of a child.

venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM

I don’t think I’m a genius, but I know I’m markedly more intelligent than you. This thread is simply additional proof of that fact. Search “venividivici crr6″ on Google if you want more.

crr6 on March 26, 2010 at 12:07 PM

I’ve always found it best to let third-party spectators decide who is the more intelligent, me or the person I’m debating. I have zero interest in a subjective determination of that. I will say that, given the few details you’ve provided, your education is inferior to mine and your job prospects are inferior to mine. I will extrapolate from there and say that your income will be inferior to mine. I will further extrapolate from that and say that your standardized test scores were inferior to mine, as was your undergrad GPA.

Other than that, you’re WAY smarter than me.

Here’s a tip: believing in the liberal ideology of the day DOESN’T make you smarter than someone else.

venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Chip on March 26, 2010 at 12:32 PM

I agree. I grew up in Massachusetts and have been around people like crr6 most of my life. The amount of mutual back-slapping they do is ridiculous.

If Albert Einstein were alive and, e.g. opposed ObamaCare, they’d deride him as an idiot.

That’s why, for the most part, it’s a complete waste of time arguing with them, except insofar as there is an undecided person watching the debate, who can then learn by watching the inane things that come out of the Leftists’ mouths just how ridiculous their policy positions really are when analyzed logically.

venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 12:44 PM

I hope you are right. My comments may be coming off as a wet blanket. I believe the issue must be litigated vigorously, and it looks like it will be. All hands on deck.

ObjectionSustained on March 26, 2010 at 1:01 PM

I don’t find your comments “wet-blanketish” at all. It’s better than us all believing it’s a slam dunk that the Court would overturn the mandate.

You raise a good political point. Will the Court see this as the naked power grab of radicals that I see it as or will it see it as the result of a well-deliberated and debated legislative process, as the Obama supporters argue it was. Maybe they’ll look (although they’d never admit it) at how the independents view the law. Since independents have the least political axe to grind, perhaps the Court would take their concerns as the most legitimate expression of the popular will. Dunno.

venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM

The founding fathers had great wisdom in creating this nation – and the knew that there would be a time when the government would over reach it’s bounds – in exchange for accolades from the democrats.

Chip on March 26, 2010 at 1:20 PM

My undergraduate specialization was Greek and Roman history. Seeing how the Founders used the wisdom gained by their study of those two great civilizations is pretty awe-inspiring. Although I don’t always like how things work politically, it’s still an amazing system of checks and balances.

And of course, I have to say dittos to that sentiment as well.

Chip on March 26, 2010 at 1:22 PM

U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A!!!

venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM