This Washington
Rob McKenna's Legal Battle with Himself
In the wake of Florida Federal Judge Roger Vinson's ruling against President Obama's health care law last week, PubliCola's regular LawNerd wrote a column on Wednesday arguing that Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna (one of the 14 state AGs who joined the lawsuit last year) actually lost on several points: A) The judge only said two states, Washington not included, had standing to bring the case; B) on the Medicaid challenge, the judge ruled in favor of the feds; and C) the judge threw out several aspects of the health care law—no denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; caps on premiums; keeping young adults on their parents' health care; insurers can't drop sick policy holders—that McKenna says he supports.
This last point raises a serious question: Why did AG McKenna join a suit that challenged the entire law? We have a call in to AG McKenna to get an answer.
We've also decided to run a second LawNerd column on this point. This isn't by our regular LawNerd, though. It turns out many law nerds are asking this question. This installment of LawNerd comes from an anonymous former state legislator.—Eds
In his federal court efforts alongside other Republicans against the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA), Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna's most difficult legal dispute may be with . . . Rob McKenna.
McKenna has been at pains to deny interest in overturning politically-popular aspects of the ACA. Indeed, in a July 6, 2010, press release he flatly stated, "[T]his suit will not overturn or repeal the new health care reform legislation."
A question-and-answer still posted on McKenna's state website even concedes "many provisions of the federal health care bill meet constitutional muster," and expressly states unchallenged provisions include those providing health care access to children regardless of pre-existing conditions; the rebates filling the Medicare drug coverage donut hole for seniors; the ban on lifetime caps; the ban on insurers dropping sick policyholders; and the ability of young adults to stay on their parents' insurance.
However, in the wake of U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson of Florida overturning the entire act, including those provisions McKenna still admits on his website are constitutional, McKenna issued a triumphant press release in which he "called the ruling a victory for individual and state rights."
Nor were McKenna's partners in the litigation qualified in their joy—the far-right National Federation of Independent Business expressed hope the U.S. Supreme Court "will also concur that this unlawful law tramples protections to liberty and property."
McKenna has also yielded messaging on the litigation to more extreme voices. On the January 31 FOX News program "On the Record," prior to dramatically reading the names of the states (including Washington) party to the lawsuit before Judge Vinson, host Greta Van Susteran exulted, "President Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all got bodyslammed today!"
Speaking for McKenna and her partners in the lawsuit, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the ruling "applies to the entire country. But certainly, it does to the 26 states involved in this lawsuit, as well as the National Federation of Independent Business, who joined in our lawsuit, and they're playing a very, very big part in our lawsuit." Of Judge Vinson's ruling the entire act was unconstitutional, she stated, "that was the ruling that we were looking for."
Former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who had first filed the lawsuit, also stated, "We can't untangle all the insurance provisions and decide which one's which if we were going to separate them."
Et tu, Rob? We can only assume McKenna tacitly consents to such messages.
Indeed, careful readers of the lawsuit filings, to which McKenna's name is affixed, would have seen that they repeatedly are transparent—in ways that McKenna's website is not—about the lawsuit's real objective.
On May 14, 2010, the amended lawsuit stated, "Plaintiff States respectfully request that the Court . . . . Declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended, to be unconstitutional[.]" This language was repeated in the second amended complaint filed just a couple weeks ago (January 18, 2011). No severability was sought to save the provisions McKenna has asserted were unchallenged.
Reasonable minds are left with only two possible conclusions: (1) Either McKenna failed to read all the lawsuit documents he signed, causing him to not understand the breadth of what he was asking for, or (2) he has simply been lying, repeatedly, when he asserted it wouldn't "overturn or repeal" the entire health care reform act. If the latter is true, he has used state taxpayer's resources, through his website, to perpetuate his deceit.
To paraphrase a famous question from former U.S. Senator Howard Baker, "What did Rob McKenna know, and when did he know it?" Nor has McKenna disclaimed legislative efforts by Washington state Republicans—who he presumably seeks to lead as governor—to, in the wake of Vinson's ruling, block state implementation of the ACA provisions that took effect September 23, 2010. Those provisions include the right of children with prexisting conditions to access health care.
As the state's leading law enforcement officer, and self-styled protecter of consumers, Attorney General McKenna has a duty—particularly to beneficiaries of those provisions of the ACA already in effect—to immediately clarify his interpretation of the ACA and the protections it confers upon Washington citizens.
This last point raises a serious question: Why did AG McKenna join a suit that challenged the entire law? We have a call in to AG McKenna to get an answer.
We've also decided to run a second LawNerd column on this point. This isn't by our regular LawNerd, though. It turns out many law nerds are asking this question. This installment of LawNerd comes from an anonymous former state legislator.—Eds
In his federal court efforts alongside other Republicans against the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA), Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna's most difficult legal dispute may be with . . . Rob McKenna.
McKenna has been at pains to deny interest in overturning politically-popular aspects of the ACA. Indeed, in a July 6, 2010, press release he flatly stated, "[T]his suit will not overturn or repeal the new health care reform legislation."
A question-and-answer still posted on McKenna's state website even concedes "many provisions of the federal health care bill meet constitutional muster," and expressly states unchallenged provisions include those providing health care access to children regardless of pre-existing conditions; the rebates filling the Medicare drug coverage donut hole for seniors; the ban on lifetime caps; the ban on insurers dropping sick policyholders; and the ability of young adults to stay on their parents' insurance.
However, in the wake of U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson of Florida overturning the entire act, including those provisions McKenna still admits on his website are constitutional, McKenna issued a triumphant press release in which he "called the ruling a victory for individual and state rights."
Nor were McKenna's partners in the litigation qualified in their joy—the far-right National Federation of Independent Business expressed hope the U.S. Supreme Court "will also concur that this unlawful law tramples protections to liberty and property."
McKenna has also yielded messaging on the litigation to more extreme voices. On the January 31 FOX News program "On the Record," prior to dramatically reading the names of the states (including Washington) party to the lawsuit before Judge Vinson, host Greta Van Susteran exulted, "President Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all got bodyslammed today!"
Speaking for McKenna and her partners in the lawsuit, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the ruling "applies to the entire country. But certainly, it does to the 26 states involved in this lawsuit, as well as the National Federation of Independent Business, who joined in our lawsuit, and they're playing a very, very big part in our lawsuit." Of Judge Vinson's ruling the entire act was unconstitutional, she stated, "that was the ruling that we were looking for."
Former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who had first filed the lawsuit, also stated, "We can't untangle all the insurance provisions and decide which one's which if we were going to separate them."
Et tu, Rob? We can only assume McKenna tacitly consents to such messages.
Indeed, careful readers of the lawsuit filings, to which McKenna's name is affixed, would have seen that they repeatedly are transparent—in ways that McKenna's website is not—about the lawsuit's real objective.
On May 14, 2010, the amended lawsuit stated, "Plaintiff States respectfully request that the Court . . . . Declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended, to be unconstitutional[.]" This language was repeated in the second amended complaint filed just a couple weeks ago (January 18, 2011). No severability was sought to save the provisions McKenna has asserted were unchallenged.
Reasonable minds are left with only two possible conclusions: (1) Either McKenna failed to read all the lawsuit documents he signed, causing him to not understand the breadth of what he was asking for, or (2) he has simply been lying, repeatedly, when he asserted it wouldn't "overturn or repeal" the entire health care reform act. If the latter is true, he has used state taxpayer's resources, through his website, to perpetuate his deceit.
To paraphrase a famous question from former U.S. Senator Howard Baker, "What did Rob McKenna know, and when did he know it?" Nor has McKenna disclaimed legislative efforts by Washington state Republicans—who he presumably seeks to lead as governor—to, in the wake of Vinson's ruling, block state implementation of the ACA provisions that took effect September 23, 2010. Those provisions include the right of children with prexisting conditions to access health care.
As the state's leading law enforcement officer, and self-styled protecter of consumers, Attorney General McKenna has a duty—particularly to beneficiaries of those provisions of the ACA already in effect—to immediately clarify his interpretation of the ACA and the protections it confers upon Washington citizens.
