LLStarks
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-24-10 06:01 PM
Original message |
Some attorneys general are being surprisingly civilized in their challenges of the HCR mandate |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-24-10 06:13 PM by LLStarks
Ed just had AG Mark Shurtleff of Utah on his show and the guy laid out a purely legal reasoning for his challenge without even using a single scare tactic. Heck, he even condemned recent vandalism and stalking of Democratic lawmakers and their property.
|
Bluzmann57
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-24-10 06:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
He's the only one so far.
|
paulsby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-24-10 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. has mckenna been uncivilized? |
|
i've seen no evidence of that, but if he has i'd like to know
|
Matariki
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-24-10 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. No, he did the same thing - laid out his legal reasoning. Civilly |
|
But I wouldn't really expect a state attorney general to come out talking like a raving right-wing loony :shrug:
|
LLStarks
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-24-10 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Well, it is his job to be legal-minded and there are legitimate legal questions about the mandate. |
|
I hope other AGs follow Shurtleff's example.
|
paulsby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-24-10 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. from what i've read at scotusblog and volokh conspiracy |
|
there's about a 1:2 ratio of those thinking that the AG's have a winnable case vs. those that don't and roughly a similar prediction as to whether the bill will survive scrutiny (iow 2:1 that it will survive)
if one accepts that legal analysis, then i think it's at least reasonable to challenge the bill,as the AG's are doing
it's a constitutional question that needs to be answered and that's why we have due process.
|
Xenotime
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-24-10 06:10 PM
Response to Original message |
5. It's attorneys general They are not military generals as your name implies. |
LLStarks
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-24-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. Thank you for the proper pluralization. I already know they aren't military though. nt |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-24-10 06:12 PM by LLStarks
|
spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-24-10 06:20 PM
Response to Original message |
8. you don't have to be crazy to be wrong. |
OHdem10
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-24-10 06:21 PM
Response to Original message |
9. A Gs are supposed to be non-political.--this is probably why they |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 06:53 PM
Response to Original message |