The sunshine federalism of Lori Swanson

posted at 9:30 am on April 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, we found out that Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson had declared that she would not only refuse to sue to stop the federal mandate in ObamaCare, she would also file amicus briefs arguing on behalf of federal jurisdiction in health care and insurance.  While Governor Tim Pawlenty plans his next move to counter Swanson, he may want to read a broadside Swanson launched against the Bush administration over federalism and insurance in August 2008.  Swanson blasted the Bush administration for its approach, sounding quite Madisonian in her staunch defense of state sovereignty and the wisdom of decentralization:

The administration also wants to allow insurance companies to be regulated exclusively by the federal government. This not only would undermine the ability of states to protect policyholders from unfair insurance practices, it probably would raise insurance rates in states like Minnesota. Midwestern states often have lower property- and casualty-insurance rates because they don’t have the same hazards — hurricanes, outdated building code enforcement, urban fires, etc. — that result in higher rates on the two coasts and in the South. A federal insurance-rate regulation system would likely gloss over geographical differences, causing Minnesota’s insurance premiums to go up.

State government has shown that it can be more responsive to the needs of the ordinary citizen. For example, in 2006, while the states were pursuing Ameriquest Mortgage for $325 million over its predatory lending practices, the White House was busy appointing the company’s CEO to be ambassador to the Netherlands.

When he first ran for the presidency, George W. Bush said he favored “state’s rights” and a smaller federal government. But now his administration wants to expand the federal government at the expense of the “state’s right” to protect citizens. What caused the change in policy? Could it be that, when it comes to consumer protection, the administration knows who has the real power in Washington?

Wow!  Swanson sounds like quite the federalist … when a Republican is in the White House.  Two years ago, Swanson staunchly defended Minnesota against a federal incursion on state jurisdiction in the insurance industry.  She noted — correctly — that different states have different issues, and that a one-size-fits-all approach would benefit some states at the expense of others, with some Midwestern states in the latter category.

So what happened?  The same argument applies to ObamaCare, after all, and not just on a state level but also on an individual level.  The federal government wants to impose an unprecedented one-size-fits-all approach onto every citizen and force them to buy insurance many of them don’t need.  Minnesota’s insurance premiums will definitely rise, as we have seen when the same approach was taken in Maine and Massachusetts.  As Swanson wrote less than two years ago, state government is more responsive to the citizenry, and in this case the citizenry can decide for themselves, too.

The only changes between August 2008 and now is that ObamaCare is a much bigger arrogation of power by the federal government than the program Swanson publicly challenged at that time … and a Democrat is in the White House now.  Swanson appears to be interested in defending the prerogatives of Minnesota only when she can rip Republicans, and interested in helping dismantle state prerogatives and individual rights when Democrats propose it.  It’s the very definition of political hack. (via HA reader Sue)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Why doesn’t he just fire this broad?

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Wow.
A Democrat that puts Party before Principle.
Who’da thunkit?

VelvetElvis on April 7, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Well, dang, I agree with what she said in 2008.

Dems can make sense sometimes.

To bad it doesn’t apply to now, go figure.

cozmo on April 7, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Wow, color me surprised…not!!

nice catch. Hopefully T-Paw will read your post Ed!!

deidre on April 7, 2010 at 9:34 AM

But Obama’s so dreamy

Doorgunner on April 7, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Why doesn’t he just fire this broad?

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 9:33 AM

She’s elected, not appointed.

Wethal on April 7, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Why doesn’t he just fire this broad?

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 9:33 AM

She was elected.

katy the mean old lady on April 7, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Wethal on April 7, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Oops, sorry. Time lapse.

katy the mean old lady on April 7, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Ed, how dare you smear this woman by using her own words against her!

Doughboy on April 7, 2010 at 9:37 AM

She was elected.

katy the mean old lady on April 7, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Ah, okay. I don’t know that state’s ways.

I just have such a hard time with libs any more. All they see is the negative. But, as governor, he should have some power to at least censure her. Or, so I like to think.

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 9:37 AM

I wonder what Obama promised her. Democrats always put ambition and fortune ahead of country.

darwin on April 7, 2010 at 9:38 AM

She’s elected, not appointed.

Wethal on April 7, 2010 at 9:35 AM

I know better now. Thanks!

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Video response

Shy Guy on April 7, 2010 at 9:38 AM

The spin that will follow should be good. I’ll bet she looks like Elaine Benes dancing.

Trusser13 on April 7, 2010 at 9:39 AM

I just have such a hard time with libs any more. All they see is the negative. But, as governor, he should have some power to at least censure her. Or, so I like to think.

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 9:37 AM

If T-Paw was a democrat he would simply launch a vicious personal attack campaign to destroy her. Since he’s not … she feels free to sell her soul to the highest bidder.

darwin on April 7, 2010 at 9:40 AM

so lame.

blatantblue on April 7, 2010 at 9:40 AM

Another Dem that changes her tune when her party is in power. Yawn.

Kafir on April 7, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Must be the pant creases…

catmman on April 7, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Find one honest journalist (tough, I know) to camp out in her office and pound on her to answer as to why she turned so completely away from her previous stance. Then Pawlenty needs to go around her and find a way to do her job in spite of her and make it public. If she loves Obamacare, let her defend it for the rest of her term.

SKYFOX on April 7, 2010 at 9:41 AM

…before I was against it…

“psst… honey, a passing resemblance to senator munster ain’t the maybelline set-up…”

Doorgunner on April 7, 2010 at 9:42 AM

darwin on April 7, 2010 at 9:40 AM

I’m sick of politicians pulling out the Constitution when they want, changing it when they feel ‘need’, and otherwise ignoring it when convenient for them.

I’m tired of politicians changing their minds depending on which way the wind is blowing.

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Michigan’s AG hosted a phone conference yesterday with a Georgetown Law Professor who says that there is merit in the lawsuit against ObamaCare. He said anyone who thinks it is a frivolious suit “doesn’t know what they are talking about”
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR RANDY BARNETT SAYS THERE ARE TWO CASES TO BE MADE AGAINST THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, ONE AGAINST THE COERCION OF STATES TO PARTICIPATE AND THE OTHER AGAINST THE SO-CALLED INDIVIDUAL MANDATE THAT REQUIRES PERSONS WITHOUT EMPLOYER-PROVIDED HEALTH INSURANCE TO PURCHASE A POLICY.
BARNETT SAYS ANYONE WHO CLAIMS THE SUIT IS FRIVOLOUS DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT. AND SAYS THE CASE COULD HAVE MERIT SHOULD IT MAKE IT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

flytier on April 7, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Wow, she must be running for some type of Czar position at the WH. Wonder if she’s feeling that Mathews leg-tingle thang…….?

Robert17 on April 7, 2010 at 9:47 AM

We have the same thing going on here in Montana with our Progressive Governor and his AG. Approximately 76% of Montanans want our AG to protect our Freedom and Liberty, but he is a Progressive and is in this battle to win. Our Governor and his AG have not one consideration about representation of the people, they only care about winning the Progressive war against our Constitution and our Freedoms. I can only hope that Americans across this great country realize what is taking place and choose a side rather than sit back and do nothing. The Tea Party movement should be growing by huge numbers every week as the assault continues.

Keemo on April 7, 2010 at 9:48 AM

…before I was against it…

“psst… honey, a passing resemblance to senator munster ain’t the maybelline set-up…”

Doorgunner on April 7, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Snort!

katy the mean old lady on April 7, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Like her idol Wussolini, she can argue both sides of just about every issue with quotes from the past vs. present.

DanMan on April 7, 2010 at 9:50 AM

for an older lady, she’s kinda cute. She can play with my gavel anytime she wants

Doctor Zhivago on April 7, 2010 at 9:51 AM

What the he1l is wrong with those morons in Minnesota electing idiots like Swanson? The entire state should be sold to Canada and the citizens forced to work in coal mines or something.

Bishop on April 7, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Swanson is also a staunch defender of states’ ability to regulate mortgage lending. This battle has been going on for years. She has consistently supported legislation and regulations that would allow states to regulate even federally-chartered banks. She backed a horrible “predatory lending” bill in 2006 that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed and would have been challenged by the banks in court as an illegal regulation of national banks.

rockmom on April 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Ed, are we going to get any kind of announcement on Hot Air Express?

Abby Adams on April 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Maybe MN can do what AZ just did. Our house and senate passed a bill and the Gov. signed it to hire another lawyer to represent us.

paulrtaylor on April 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Interst moral compass she got there.

Impeach her!

EliTheBean on April 7, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Booooooooo!

5u93rm4n on April 7, 2010 at 9:55 AM

She sells her credibility and soul for Obama, and lies like a well trained attorney. We are surprised by this?

kam582 on April 7, 2010 at 9:56 AM

What the he1l is wrong with those morons in Minnesota electing idiots like Swanson? The entire state should be sold to Canada and the citizens forced to work in coal mines or something.

Bishop on April 7, 2010 at 9:52 AM

And take away their music and TV, to be replaced with Obow’s speeches and nothing else. No Dancing With the Stars or American Idol. No Niel Young protest Rock. Just Obow’s droning speeches.

Mass suicide in a week, guaranteed! LOL

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Love means never having to say you’re sorry.

Being a Democrat means never having to admit to being a hypocrite.

olesparkie on April 7, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 9:37 AM

He might be able to do what we did in Arizona when the Democratic AG refused to join the suit against O-care. Our governor asked the State House to approve hiring a private lawyer to to the job. She received the okay last Monday.

chemman on April 7, 2010 at 9:58 AM

As has been said many times before Dems only spout conservative principles if it helps them get elected. That shouldn’t come as any big surprise since lying is what they do best.

docdave on April 7, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Just like the filibuster when Booosh was in office trying to nominate judges, these people only stand up for the principles and Constitutional protections that benefit them. If it doesn’t favor their agenda, libs rail against everything this country stands for.

search4truth on April 7, 2010 at 9:59 AM

chemman on April 7, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Coolness! If only I could get that here in NY.

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 9:59 AM

paulrtaylor on April 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Beat me to the punch. The only thing that would be iffy is the make up of the Minnesota legislature. I think both houses are majority democrat.

chemman on April 7, 2010 at 10:01 AM

i’d hit it

max1 on April 7, 2010 at 10:03 AM

She just wrote her next GOP opponent’s ad for him/her. Time to leak a criminal case she fscked up on.

Sekhmet on April 7, 2010 at 10:12 AM

i’d hit it

max1 on April 7, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Snort. You’d probably hit a woodpile hoping for a snake.

katy the mean old lady on April 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM

This highlights what Americans must realize when they take sides on an issue. Swanson opposed Bush in my mind because she didn’t trust him. Obama she supported because she trusted him. This is what we as voters must not do when an issue comes up sponsored by “our party”. Too many times we are lulled to sleep and pay no attention when “our party” over reaches and expands federal government too much. We, including myself, must remember the power we give to a great leader becomes the power of a rat that follows.

Herb on April 7, 2010 at 10:14 AM

Snort. You’d probably hit a woodpile hoping for a snake.

katy the mean old lady on April 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM

i’ll try anything once!

max1 on April 7, 2010 at 10:19 AM

We, including myself, must remember the power we give to a great leader becomes the power of a rat that follows.

WTF?

Cicero43 on April 7, 2010 at 10:25 AM

What the he1l is wrong with those morons in Minnesota electing idiots like Swanson? The entire state should be sold to Canada and the citizens forced to work in coal mines or something.

Bishop on April 7, 2010 at 9:52 AM

They’re not all morons. Ed Morrissey is from Minnesota, as is Michelle Bachmann.

Although the state did elect Al Franken to the Senate, with a little help from the Lizard People.

Every state has its morons, and its thinking people. We have to work so that the latter outnumber the former. Which is exactly what Ed is trying to do.

Steve Z on April 7, 2010 at 10:26 AM

The federal government wants to impose an unprecedented one-size-fits-all approach onto every citizen and force them to buy insurance many of them don’t need want.

I don’t want it. It’s nobody elese business what I may or may not need.

Jaynie59 on April 7, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Hmmm. A hypocritical Democrat. I never thought I’d see that.

John Deaux on April 7, 2010 at 10:40 AM

Another little lamb sacrifices her political career for the chosen one.

Funny, if not so sad.

jeff_from_mpls on April 7, 2010 at 10:42 AM

I wonder what Obama promised her. Democrats always put ambition and fortune ahead of country.

darwin on April 7, 2010 at 9:38 AM

She does seem to be trying awfully hard to polish (in a very public way) her hypocrisy skills — essential for any high Democratic office. But if she’s auditioning for a job in the Obama administration, she’d better hurry — only three years left and then he’s outta there.

AZCoyote on April 7, 2010 at 10:43 AM

she is being fickle for political benefits. don’t we already know that libs are always in it for themselves?

jbh45 on April 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Swanson appears to be interested in defending the prerogatives of Minnesota only when she can rip Republicans, and interested in helping dismantle state prerogatives and individual rights when Democrats propose it. It’s the very definition of political hack

–Gee, and the GOP hasn’t done the same thing even with respect to Healthcare? They’re all politicans, Ed. It’s not like the GOP has any better ethics and integrity than the Dems do.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM

…but i betcha she can make a great hotdish!

jbh45 on April 7, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Every state has its morons, and its thinking people. We have to work so that the latter outnumber the former. Which is exactly what Ed is trying to do.
Steve Z on April 7, 2010 at 10:26 AM

No, I’m sorry but every last person from Minnesota is a moron and should be deported somewhere, anywhere. They are useless people and good for nothing.

Bishop on April 7, 2010 at 10:45 AM

dontchaknow…

jbh45 on April 7, 2010 at 10:45 AM

–Gee, and the GOP hasn’t done the same thing even with respect to Healthcare? They’re all politicans, Ed. It’s not like the GOP has any better ethics and integrity than the Dems do.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM

I have come to believe this format, this pattern of response is a manifestation of a disease.

They all do it. The most intellectually vacant point of view possible.

jeff_from_mpls on April 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Remember in November.

royzer on April 7, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Michigan’s AG hosted a phone conference yesterday with a Georgetown Law Professor who says that there is merit in the lawsuit against ObamaCare. He said anyone who thinks it is a frivolious suit “doesn’t know what they are talking about”
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR RANDY BARNETT SAYS THERE ARE TWO CASES TO BE MADE AGAINST THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, ONE AGAINST THE COERCION OF STATES TO PARTICIPATE AND THE OTHER AGAINST THE SO-CALLED INDIVIDUAL MANDATE THAT REQUIRES PERSONS WITHOUT EMPLOYER-PROVIDED HEALTH INSURANCE TO PURCHASE A POLICY.
BARNETT SAYS ANYONE WHO CLAIMS THE SUIT IS FRIVOLOUS DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT. AND SAYS THE CASE COULD HAVE MERIT SHOULD IT MAKE IT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

flytier on April 7, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Unfortunately, he’s also said he believes the Supreme Court will probably uphold the law. See below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/03/19/DI2010031902926.html

Wilmington, N.C. : What is your opinion regarding being forced by the government to buy a health-care policy? Do you believe the Supreme Court will consider it constitutional? Thank you.

Randy Barnett: The safe bet is always that the Supreme Court will uphold the power of Congress, as it generally has for the past 60 years or longer. But this is true right up until the day the Court surprises us by striking down a law. See e.g. Citizens United.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:50 AM

–Gee, and the GOP hasn’t done the same thing even with respect to Healthcare? They’re all politicans, Ed. It’s not like the GOP has any better ethics and integrity than the Dems do.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM
I have come to believe this format, this pattern of response is a manifestation of a disease.

They all do it. The most intellectually vacant point of view possible.

jeff_from_mpls on April 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM

–So you don’t think the GOP does the politically correct thing most of the time, as well? If you don’t, I have a friend who needs help getting some funds out of a bank account in Nigeria.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:52 AM

–So you don’t think the GOP does the politically correct thing most of the time, as well? If you don’t, I have a friend who needs help getting some funds out of a bank account in Nigeria.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:52 AM

I think when the GOP is the topic of conversation you could come in and spew whatever it is you’re spewing in that context.

Now pull your pants back up and fix your hair. You’re a disgrace.

jeff_from_mpls on April 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM

Nothing says “power hungry” whore like a partisan pivot on principles to assist a preferred political party.
.
She is truly disgusting.

ExpressoBold on April 7, 2010 at 10:58 AM

–So you don’t think the GOP does the politically correct thing most of the time, as well? If you don’t, I have a friend who needs help getting some funds out of a bank account in Nigeria.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:52 AM

I think when the GOP is the topic of conversation you could come in and spew whatever it is you’re spewing in that context.

Now pull your pants back up and fix your hair. You’re a disgrace.

jeff_from_mpls on April 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM

–Touchy, touchy. Just because she doesn’t want to waste your money as a taxpayer in fighting a case that looks to be a loser. You and Ed ought to be thanking her for not spending your tax dollare unwisely. There’s a difference between taking a position in one situation and spending money in the other one when it’s likely to be unsuccessful.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:59 AM

why does this surprise anyone, it just a Democrat being a Democrat, the don’t do what is correct, they do what is in the best interest of the Democrat party.

RonK on April 7, 2010 at 11:02 AM

If the Democratic Party told Lori Swanson to stand in front of a speeding train, she’d stand in front of a speeding train. She works for her party first. Not Minnesota.

RBMN on April 7, 2010 at 11:09 AM

You and Ed ought to be thanking her for not spending your tax dollare unwisely.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:59 AM

There is no way you typed that with a straight face.

You really need to pay more attention to current events.

John Deaux on April 7, 2010 at 11:09 AM

All constitutional offices are up for election this year here in MN: Governor, SOS, auditor, AG. Strangely enough, she was quite the staunch defender of the Conceal Carry law when the process that passed it was challenged in court, when she was an Asst. AG in 2003.

Amendment X on April 7, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Unfortunately, he’s also said he believes the Supreme Court will probably uphold the law. See below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/03/19/DI2010031902926.html

Wilmington, N.C. : What is your opinion regarding being forced by the government to buy a health-care policy? Do you believe the Supreme Court will consider it constitutional? Thank you.

Randy Barnett: The safe bet is always that the Supreme Court will uphold the power of Congress, as it generally has for the past 60 years or longer. But this is true right up until the day the Court surprises us by striking down a law. See e.g. Citizens United.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:50 AM

No, he did not say what he believes. He commented on what the safe bet always is. That does not necessarily depict what his belief may be. Another bit of evidence that liberals cannot read anything with proper comprehension.

Yoop on April 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Gee, and the GOP hasn’t done the same thing even with respect to Healthcare? They’re all politicans, Ed. It’s not like the GOP has any better ethics and integrity than the Dems do.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM
I have come to believe this format, this pattern of response is a manifestation of a disease.

They all do it. The most intellectually vacant point of view possible.

jeff_from_mpls on April 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM

FYI:

http://volokh.com/category/health-care/

Many commentators have noted that the individual mandate is an idea that some Republican politicians and right-of-center thinkers used to support. Over the weekend the Associated Press reported that many on the right once championed an individual mandate as part of a broader health care overhaul. Not only does the Massachusetts health care reform championed by Mitt Romney include an individual mandate, but back in the 1990s , the Heritage Foundation and many Republican office-holders called for an individual mandate as part of a GOP alternative to the Clinton Administration’s proposed health care reforms. In 1993, for example, Heritage’s Stuart Butler testified before Congress in support of a new, “more rational” social contract under which government would provide greater assistance to those lacking health care in return for greater individual responsibility. Explained Butler:

This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan — one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 11:24 AM

There is no way you typed that with a straight face.

You really need to pay more attention to current events.

John Deaux on April 7, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Which brings us full circle.

Whenever you detect a nasal, effeminate voice whining “well, republicaaaans do it toooooooo” you know that beneath the unattractive opening line is a treasure trove of irrationality and/or delusion.

jeff_from_mpls on April 7, 2010 at 11:26 AM

No, he did not say what he believes. He commented on what the safe bet always is. That does not necessarily depict what his belief may be. Another bit of evidence that liberals cannot read anything with proper comprehension.

Yoop on April 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM

–If you’re betting, you’d want to go with the safe bet unless you’re getting great odds on the other bet.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM

No, he did not say what he believes. He commented on what the safe bet always is. That does not necessarily depict what his belief may be. Another bit of evidence that liberals cannot read anything with proper comprehension.

Yoop on April 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM

–If you’re betting, you’d want to go with the safe bet unless you’re getting great odds on the other bet.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Your response has absolutely nothing to do with your original assertion that you knew what he believed.

Why am I not surprised. Typical liberal dodge to avoid a fact.

Yoop on April 7, 2010 at 11:35 AM

–Gee, and the GOP hasn’t done the same thing even with respect to Healthcare? They’re all politicans, Ed. It’s not like the GOP has any better ethics and integrity than the Dems do.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Here we go with the phony equivalences again. Tell me how many Republicans voted for the Dems socialist programs, support abortion and want to weaken our defense just to name a few critical issues where the parties are dramatically different.

docdave on April 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM

One thing for sure, Democrats are party people first. Must be some sort of secret pact.

tarpon on April 7, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Democrats are simply anti-Republican regardless of truth and regardless of whether it’s good or bad for we the people.

Mojave Mark on April 7, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Once again, Minnesota gets to see what a mistake they made hiring this woman over Jeff Johnson. Seems to me she makes Mike Hatch look sane, which is bragable.

Red Cloud on April 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM

No, he did not say what he believes. He commented on what the safe bet always is. That does not necessarily depict what his belief may be. Another bit of evidence that liberals cannot read anything with proper comprehension.

Yoop on April 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM
–If you’re betting, you’d want to go with the safe bet unless you’re getting great odds on the other bet.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Your response has absolutely nothing to do with your original assertion that you knew what he believed.

Why am I not surprised. Typical liberal dodge to avoid a fact.

Yoop on April 7, 2010 at 11:35 AM

If you asked him to put $100 on “uphold” or “overruled”, he’d put it on “uphold”. That’s what he believes. Further evidence from another article he wrote:

“Ultimately, there are three ways to think about whether a law is constitutional: Does it conflict with what the Constitution says? Does it conflict with what the Supreme Court has said? Will five justices accept a particular argument? Although the first three of the potential constitutional challenges to health-care reform have a sound basis in the text of the Constitution, and no Supreme Court precedents clearly bar their success, the smart money says there won’t be five votes to thwart the popular will to enact comprehensive health insurance reform.

But what if five justices think the legislation was carried bleeding across the finish line on a party-line vote over widespread bipartisan opposition? What if control of one or both houses of Congress flips parties while lawsuits are pending? Then there might just be five votes against regulating inactivity by compelling citizens to enter into a contract with a private company. This legislation won’t go into effect tomorrow. In the interim, it is far more vulnerable than if some citizens had already started to rely upon its benefits.

If this sounds far-fetched, consider another recent case in which the smart money doubted there were five votes to intervene in a politicized controversy involving technical procedures. A case in which five justices may have perceived that long-established rules were being gamed for purely partisan advantage.

You might have heard of it: Bush v. Gore.”

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 12:00 PM

–Gee, and the GOP hasn’t done the same thing even with respect to Healthcare? They’re all politicans, Ed. It’s not like the GOP has any better ethics and integrity than the Dems do.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Here we go with the phony equivalences again. Tell me how many Republicans voted for the Dems socialist programs, support abortion and want to weaken our defense just to name a few critical issues where the parties are dramatically different.

docdave on April 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM

–We’re not talking about positions. We’re talking about doing things for political reasons. How many GOPers stood up to Bush when he was spending money like crazy a few years ago, like on the Medicare prescription expansion. And there are several GOPers who are pro-choice.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Typical partisan hack indeed. I doubt the urban Minnesobots care about integrity and principle as long as all that free stuff promised by Uncle Sam keeps them comfortably numb. I hope Lori has a real pretty dress to wear when she gets her reward “flight” on Air Force One.

dmann on April 7, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Its funny to me that Conservatives are angry for Romney for instituting mandates at the state wide level for his health care plan and yet we have evidence that conservatives floated this idea in response to Hillary Care.

To take a hard line, zero tolerance position towards individual mandate at the state wide level, for any reason, is fundamentally wrong.

Federal mandates are unconstitutional, state mandates are not.

Anyways, to argue that Romney’s state-level, bipartisan, popular plan makes him somehow disqualified from the Republican nomination because Obama bastardized his ideas and rammed them down all our throats is a stupid and flawed argument to make.

Volkoh clearly points out the hypocrisy of supporting individual mandates and now opposing them. Can we say flip flopping, anyone?

Conservative Samizdat on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Lori Swanson may be completely worthless as an attorney general, but she does have one thing going for her that the Democrats should take advantage of: her looks. Let’s face it, the Democrat party is basically a hog fest when it comes to their women. I mean lately the best they can come up with is Michelle Obama. Please. So, if I were running the DNC, I would put Sanson out there nationally, with the message “Hey, we have good looking women too, just like the GOP.”

WarEagle01 on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Okay, I’ll bite. Let’s accept the premise that I didn’t stand up to Bush when he was “spending money like crazy”. Let’s accept the premise that I was wrong not to do so. Where do you stand right now, Jimbo3, on Obama’s spending?

Here’s and excerpt from David Walker’s book, “Comeback America”. It’s got blurbs on the book jacket from Robert Rubin and Bill Bradley:

“…federal debt almost doubled during Bush 43′s presidency …Based on projected deficits in President Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget proposal and longer-range outlook, federal debt could double again during the next eight to ten years …”

So what’s your answer, Jimbo3?

chris999 on April 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM

WarEagle01 on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

The men ain’t so great either. Seen that Phil Hare? Talk about hog fest! Other great looking guys: Waxman, Frank …

chris999 on April 7, 2010 at 1:37 PM

Conservative Samizdat on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Sorry, I think the Massachusetts experiment does disqualify Romney. Many Republican politicians, like Mitch Daniels went in a completely different direction. His plan was much more modest. Massachusetts is a fiscal basket case. The state is in deep, deep doodoo. What Romney did was reckless. He wanted a “legacy” to ride to the presidency. He gravely miscalculated.

The real lesson of Masscare (or Romneycare) is not that Republicans are “hypocrites” to oppose it. The real lesson is that it doesn’t work and we see it failing right in front of our eyes and yet our moronic congress and president followed it!!!

And when pea brain Harry Smith interviewed Obama, who promptly brought up REpublicans’ hypocrisy on Romneycare, he didn’t dare say “but Mr. President, Romneycare costs many order of magnitudes more than what was projected. Aren’t you worried?”

chris999 on April 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Is Swanson a Soros Secretary of State Project stooge?

SukieTawdry on April 7, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Okay, I’ll bite. Let’s accept the premise that I didn’t stand up to Bush when he was “spending money like crazy”. Let’s accept the premise that I was wrong not to do so. Where do you stand right now, Jimbo3, on Obama’s spending?

Here’s and excerpt from David Walker’s book, “Comeback America”. It’s got blurbs on the book jacket from Robert Rubin and Bill Bradley:

“…federal debt almost doubled during Bush 43’s presidency …Based on projected deficits in President Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget proposal and longer-range outlook, federal debt could double again during the next eight to ten years …”

So what’s your answer, Jimbo3?

chris999 on April 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM

–I think you’ve got to spend to get out of a severe recession. Then cut back when times (and employment) get better.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 2:54 PM

But this is true right up until the day the Court surprises us by striking down a law. See e.g. Citizens United.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Also the appeals court striking down the FCC in Net Neutrality or the handgun ban in D.C. You never know what the court will do and Obama’s baiting them a the State of the Union won’t help him either.

flytier on April 7, 2010 at 3:12 PM

It won’t even get to the Supreme Court if all the appellate courts uphold the law.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 4:31 PM

She was against Federal facism before she was for it?

chickasaw42 on April 7, 2010 at 4:37 PM

C’mon, Bishop, I’ve been waiting all day for you to set the hook.

2ipa on April 7, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Seeing that I live in MN I called the AG’s office and had the fellow answering phones read in her own words what she said two years ago. He then proceeded to tell me, “you don’t understand the difference because I am not as educated as he is.” Honestly, that is was he said. I could not believe it.

jzzr83 on April 8, 2010 at 11:30 AM

This is about States’ rights. You can’t have it both ways. The Federal Government does not have the authority to contravene the right of the individual States unless the power is specified in the Constitution. How hard can it be?

LarryG on April 8, 2010 at 12:18 PM