| AG Suthers is joining 11 other Con AGs around the country in this lawsuit. Where is all the "bipartisanship" that the Cons are whining they never saw in the legislative process? Can't they find any CorporateDem AGs to join this silly lawsuit?
Moreover, who's going to pay for this lawsuit? Will Colorado be held financially accountable for part of the tab? Aren't we trying to recover from the Great Recession still? I thought we had to limit what was spent in this recovery. As usual, IOKIYAR.
The Cons can try to come up with whatever rationale they want. I'm certainly no Constitutional law expert, so I don't feel comfortable commenting on the validity of their claim that the legislation violates the 10th Amendment's commerce clause. From what little I understand, it doesn't sound to me like the claim has merit.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the courts think. It seems to me that it matters specifically what the Supreme Court thinks. And we all know how radicalized and activist the high court has become, thanks to the Bush Regime. I don't feel confident at all thinking about this case in the hands of Roberts and his sycophants.
That being said, I should also point out that I think the mandate to buy private insurance without providing public insurance is one of the worst aspects of this legislation. I wouldn't be heartbroken to see the mandate challenged, as long as people would then push their elected officials to provide a robust public option.
So what do you think? How valid is the claim? Who will pay for the lawsuit? What will the ruling and effects be? |
