[...] PA2010:  The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze. [...]

“He didn’t do this as a partisan Republican, attacking a Democratic health care bill, but because of his belief that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to usurp the rights of the state, and force citizens to purchase health care.”

Chris-
Sorry to burst your bubble, but he absolutely did it as a partisan Republican attack. He even is using it for fundraising. If he actually believes that it’s unconstitutional he should really considering returning his law degree.

“Call me crazy…”

Ok crazy.

Tom Corbett is not doing this out of any need of his to “protect us from… unconstitutional law.” It’s a ruse that he thought he could exploit but it’s largely going to backfire. Pennsylvanians are sick and tired of seeing the Republicans defending insurers profiteering off of others’ misery. Corbett’s partisan attempt to keep the status quo in place of higher costing, job sucking health care is naturally going to meet resistance from the people who live in and care about the fortunes of our state and country. He might as well say he’s signing his future anti-jobs bill as Governor in a state that needs to see good paying jobs come into the economy, not leave as the GOP keeps working for.

It’s a miscalculation of Corbett’s and the Republican Party’s to work against people having access to quality care. I hope it is one that keeps Corbett away from the Governors mansion and killing our economy

Bonusgate is clearly a political stunt. One needs to to only look at the timing of when Dems were charged and when Reps were charged. That said, I am happy to see something being done about our money being wasted. As for health care, I believe that is also grandstanding. I do believe that the health care bill is unconstitutional, but I also believe that it will not be struck down. And all the AGs know this. My concern with Corbett is that he is that during his reign as PA’s “top cop”, nearly every crime has risen from his first day to now. However, I will still probably vote for him.

If Corbett’s motivation isn’t political gain, then why are only Republican attorneys general joining the lawsuit mania? This frivolous lawsuit will never even get near the trial stage. It will be dimissed on preliminary objections and the only thing that it will accomplish is to waste PA taxpayers’ money. I hope that voters are paying attention to this cynical folly of Tom Corbett.

Lee, I agree it is a waste of money because I think it will go nowhere. However, while this will cost Pennsylvanians MILIIONS, the health bill will cost all Americans over a TRILLION. I am guessing you are okay with that. Does that bother you?

Chris, why are you so nasty all the time when you write?
Can’t you just express your opinions — and they are opinions since they aren’t really tethered to the facts of the situation — without being nasty?
If your arguments are so strong, there’s no need.

The constitutionality argument is bogus – any ConLaw scholar worth his salt will tell you this challenge is going to get shot down. It’s completely frivolous – there is a century of legal precedent that would be overturned if Corbett and friends somehow find an activist judge with the cajones to do that much damage to American law.

Before he goes running his mouth off, Mr. Friend should make sure he knows what he’s talking about. This is clearly a case of someone coming out aggressively in the hopes that the audience will mistake it for confidence. Seems more like a dog in a corner lashing out.

I know this come as a suprise to many of the posters on this board, but there still are some of us who believe in the original intent of the Constitution and that the 10th Ammendment means exactly what it says. Now I’m quite sure a politically liberal ConLaw scholar, as well as four Supreme Court justices I can think of, would find this lawsuit frivolous, however, there are five other sitting justices who may very well see it another way.

There is no question that Progressive/Liberal policies have been on the advance for the past century and many Courts have helped them along.(Wickard v. Filburn, the wheat farmer case being chief among them) That doesn’t mean that we all agree with them. Maybe overturning a century of law is a good thing. I for one applaud Colbert’s efforts and hope he and his fellow AG’s are successful.
As far as health care issues for Pennsylvanians are concerned, I’d rather have them decided in Harriburg than in Washington.

The settled law involving the commerce clause enumerates congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce, not the lack of interstate commerce. It’s an important distinction and one definitely worth pursuing. If comgress can compel individuals to buy insurance, why can’t it compel individuals to buy anything that they deem may keep people healthy, such as vitamins, gym memberships, an apple a day, whatever, all in the name of keeping costs down for the common good?

Those quick to sneer at the challenge as a “stunt” haven’t seen past their starry-eyed love for the great promise of cradle-to-grave nanny state care becoming reality.

I don’t care if Corbett is doing it for votes or for publicity. I’m just glad he’s doing it.

Here’s a test.

How do Pennsylvania statistics compare to those in other “developed” countries (where health care is delivered nationally) when it comes to infanr mortality, kife-expectancy, days lost from work (morbidity)? These are the best broad-based metrics by which to judge the effectiveness of health-care delivery?

Here’s another test.

How much Insurance $$$ will show up on Corbett’s 3/31/10 & 6/30/10 campaign finance reports?

Maybe PA2010 should establish a pool. Winner gets a free year’s supply of Viagra (in recognition of the fact that covering abortion is a big no-no, but paying for guys to get it up is OK).

[...] abortions, no doubt). That winning this suit will somehow turn over a hundred years of settled law (this commenter definitely went to the Barack Obama Correspondence School of Misrepresenting Supreme [...]

This opinion piece already ran on the Philadelphia Magazine website. Why does it have to turn up on this website?

Craig-

If it was true that the heath insurance reform law would cost us trillions, then I would be concerned. But it’s not true.

The non-partisan (I realize that a lot of people don’t know, or refuse to know, what that word means) Congressional Budget Office has reported that the law will SAVE the US government 1.3 trillion dollars over the next two decades. If it is off by, say, a hundred billion or so, it’s still a 1.2 trillion dollar savings. Not bad. Not bad at all.