« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Meet Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson: Up Obamacare Creek Without a Paddle

By: zsmv f6 (Diary)  |  March 24th, 2010 at 04:12 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Attorney General Edmondson has released the following statement about calls for Oklahoma to join 14 other states filing suit against Obamacare:

“We have yet to determine if Oklahoma will file a lawsuit over the federal health care legislation. I simply believe a thoughtful and thorough legal analysis of the constitutional issues is preferable to a rush to the courthouse. We’re essentially aiming at a moving target because the Senate must still consider the House reconciliation bill, so we don’t yet know what the final law will look like.

(snip)

We will continue to research the constitutional issues and case law. Facts and the law, not politics and fear, will drive our decision.”

Despite his high-minded rhetoric, both politics and fear are the driving motives, but they apply to Mr. Edmondson and not the public. AG Edmondson currently desires the Democratic nomination for governor, and is thus caught between Scylla and Charybdis on the issue of Obamacare; devoured in the general election by the Right if he doesn’t pursue the suit, and pulled under by the Left in the primary if he does pursue. He currently tries to avoid the issue entirely by getting involved with the “Feed the Children” spat to

see that the public’s interest is protected and properly executed.

If he was truly interested in the public good, he would look beyond the confines of his political ambitions, as Rob McKenna of Washington State has shown.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • izoneguy

    If this guy thinks he has a snowballs chance in hell of being Governor then let him keep spouting the liberal party line.

  • eburke

    as Attorney General?

    I mean Boren might be the closest thing left in the Marxist Party to what used to be a sizable contingent of conservative southern Dems (understanding that seeing as how his first vote each session is to put the Botox Queen in the Speaker’s chair he shares in their perfidy) but that’s just one CD.

    How did the entire *state* manage to elect this guy?

  • acat

    Don’t remember where I read it, but I recall hearing Soros had his fingers in State politics, trying to get Dem A.G. candidates elected.

    This is all a bit conspiracy-theory for my taste, but .. that doesn’t mean it isn’t true….

    Mew

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Monkey see, monkey do.

  • renny

    and urge him to join the suits. You can also email or fax.

    NJ is the third most assaulted with Medicaid costs next to NY and CA, and we should certainly protest the unfunded Medicaid costs NJ will incur starting in four years and protest the special deals that FL and NE and CT got because their reps. “held out” or accepted “deals”–blackmail and bribes, which I think are still against the law.

  • Menlo

    But not for the reason Oklahoma’s AG gave. It’s a waste of state taxpayer money at a time when state budgets are hurting.

    Anyone who thinks any federal judge is going to take seriously a single suit against this bill is delusional. This is nothing more than a public expression of the position of certain state officials on the bill.

  • http://www.thediscerningconservative.com discerningconservative

    How is it a waste of taxpayer money? AG’s and their staff are paid regardless of whether they bring suit or not. In fact, they are paid if they don’t engage in any legal battles at all. I say let them earn their pay.

  • gekster

    Counting loss of tax revenue due to lost jobs due to I can’t pay for you to work here because I have to take my profits I pay you with to pay for the others HC who work for me due to HCR.
    I have a suggestion for you.
    Do Sumatra yoga.
    You will actually see the sun as being bright.

  • Menlo

    I was thinking there always were with any lawsuit. However if not, I apologize.

  • gekster
  • Menlo

    No judge is going to take it seriously. It’s reality, not pessimism.

  • izoneguy

    I have talked to several local judges. They see merit in what the AG’s are doing. Sitting on your hands and saying it is hopeless will get us nowhere.

  • gekster

    second nt

  • http://www.thediscerningconservative.com discerningconservative

    But do you think that there are no attorney’s on the AG’s staff? They are paid regardless. That is their job, to represent the state in the court system. Our tax dollars pay for them no matter what suits the state is involved in.

  • http://www.thediscerningconservative.com discerningconservative

    When a state is involved in a lawsuit, they don’t look through the Yellow Pages for a lawyer. They already have plenty on payroll. They are getting paid regardless of whether the State is involved in court battles or not.

  • Ausonius

    Part of the strategy was to elect Dems as Attorneys General and as Secretaries of State.

    The goal of the strategy was to enable loosened voting rules, if not downright fraud, in favor of Dem candidates.

    See:

    http://www.redstate.com/ausonius/2010/02/28/george-soros-and-the-manipulation-of-maobamas-america/

  • gekster

    i thing I said what you said.

  • http://www.thediscerningconservative.com discerningconservative

    Wrong Reply To This button. Meant as a second reply to Menlo.

  • gekster

    LOL

  • Menlo

    If the judges rule against the state, as they no doubt will, does the state not then have to pay?

  • gekster

    oh, and sorry not needed.
    just wanted a clarification buddy.

  • http://www.thediscerningconservative.com discerningconservative

    For a state owned courtroom? For judges that are on the state’s payroll? What exactly are they paying for that they wouldn’t be paying for to begin with? States pay judges salaries. States pay to build courts, and pay the court’s employees salaries. These are things that the state is paying for regardless of whether the states bring suit or not. Please point to the precise extra cost this will bring to the states.

  • gekster

    With HCR, it will only cost more and more.
    If they win, it will save them millions.
    If they lose,
    well,
    states have wasted money on worse.

  • Menlo

    I see how they have ruled in the past and how they continue to rule. Unfortunately (and wrongly) they all rule exclusively on the basis of past rulings. Based on that, I don’t see how they can take any of the charges against the bill seriously, especially if they want to remain consistent with rulings that have been used, followed, and relied upon for nearly a century.

  • Menlo

    As I said, I apologize. I had always heard about spending money on lawsuits, but I hadn’t thought of it that way. Technically it is federal court we’re talking about, but I suppose their costs and those defending federal legislation are covered too.

  • gekster

    asides from taxes.

  • http://www.thediscerningconservative.com discerningconservative

    It would be a federal court. There is a possibility that the states would have to pay court costs if they lose in a federal court. I am not an attorney, so I can’t say exactly what that cost would be. I am pretty sure that the most expensive part of a lawsuit is the lawyer, and the states have plenty of them. Court costs would be a drop in the bucket compared to the states burden from Obamacare. This is worth fighting on all fronts, even if it is likely the courts won’t hear the case, or even rule against the state.

  • Locked and Loaded

    Edmondson’s dad was a US Rep. from Muskogee, so the name helped him.

    The better question is this: How did we get Democratic Governor Brad Henry?

    Answer: Barry Switzer. Ol’ Barry’s a bigtime Democrat, and he really came out for Henry. Of course, the pathetic campaign of Steve Largent didn’t help matters.

    Now, Drew is just getting around to being an Obama lapdog, but Brad has been moving in that direction for some time. I guess it’s just a matter of time before we learn that even Oklahoma Democrats will gladly ditch their scruples when the time comes.

    Maybe we can weed out a few more this next go-around.

  • Menlo

    You have to show how the bill itself violates the Constitution, or in the case of the court system here and now, how it violates what other judges have said about the Constitution in their rulings.

  • gekster

    what I am saying is that the cost to the state will be definite.
    After a point there will be no more costs for the state.
    With HCR, we don’t know the end of the costs will be,
    and what the states will have to pony up for, for having it impossed on them.
    The difference is a cost that will end,
    and a cost that wont.
    Some states are willing to go for the lesser of the cost.