2010.08.02
Finally, Ken Cuccinelli wins a round, on health-care reform UPDATED
AP Photo | Steve Helber
Is Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s months-long losing streak finally over?
Today, a federal judge in Richmond declined to throw out Cuccinelli’s lawsuit over the federal health-care reform law passed by Congress. It can go forward, the judge ruled.
We will put that in the win column for him, even though it means Virginia taxpayers will be losers, because he’s frittering away our money to challenge that law.
This must come as some relief after May, June and July, which truly were some rough months for the Attorney General.
1) First he had to back off Breast-gate, the ill-fated and rather boobish attempt to replace a bare-chested Roman goddess on the state seal with a more modestly attired one.
2) Then Cuccinelli, among many politicians in Virginia and elswhere, embroiled himself in the midst of NavyVets-gate. He single-handedly defended the honor (and $55,500 campaign contribution to Cuccinelli) of one Bobby Thompson, as Republican and Democratic attorneys general in half a dozen other states launched probes into whether Thompson is a con man. Last week he threw in the towel and said he would donate Thompson’s contributions to a non-scam veterans charity, a move other politicians from both parties did months ago.
3) Also last week the Environmental Protection Agency — which under the Bush Administration had ruled carbon dioxide emission threatened human health and should be regulated — reviewed that decision and found it correct, and basically told Cuccinelli to go pound sand with his allegation of CO2-gate.
4) Which is kind of like what the University of Virginia did when the attorney general sought university records so he could go on a fishing expedition and put the screws to a climate scientist he suspects — with little reason — of committing some kind of fraud, i.e. Global Warming-gate.
But hey, going 1-4 is a better than 0-5 as any baseball pitcher will tell you.
Maybe Cuccinelli’s luck is about to turn. Maybe he’s on a streak that will at least even his record.
Here’s the White House’s response.
Stay tuned.
Thing is, this was little more than a ruling that he had legal standing. It says nothing about the validity of the basic argument. So maybe half a win.
Comment by gdad — August 2, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
It was an early round, and I give him the win in it. I think he needed some good news after an awful spring and summer.
Comment by Dan Casey — August 2, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
The Washington Post Magazine ran a cover story on Cuccinelli yesterday– you can access it at this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304025.html
Comment by Blossom — August 2, 2010 @ 1:54 pm
gdad/Dan – that crow tastes a lot better with a little steak sauce….
Comment by Dublin Dawg — August 2, 2010 @ 2:12 pm
Its not good news for him.Its good news for Virginians,and America.It shows that the case has validity.Go get um Kooch.
Comment by Jack McGuire — August 2, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Because Virginia passed a law, he gets to go defend it, that does not mean it has or does not have “merit”. Such things are not usually dropped out of hand as that is not fair to the state, but you should not hold out an real illusions that his money wasting effort will win. mark my words. And no, it is not good news for Virginia in any way, shape or form. Either we are too dumb to know a law is unconstitutional and passed it anyway or we are too dumb to know what power the federal government actually has. Like Arizona, “we” spend money, time and effort and “we” will lose.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 2, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
No Tony, it does not indicate that the case has any “validity”. It merely asserts that Super Cooch has any jurisdiction to bring suit at all. Which the judge EXPRESSLY SAYS at the end of the piece which you weren’t sufficiently motivated to read.
Honest to God Tony you’ve turned into the biggest hypocrite on this blog. And that’s no small achievement.
Comment by Kristen — August 2, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
#6,
Hmmm, I didn’t see you bemoaning Congress or the Obama regime for passing health care and the cost associated with same when it might be considered unconstitutional.
Maybe many of us can read amendment 10 plainly?
I would proffer to you that the amount spent to pass healthcare, although wasted, is a sunk cost and cannot be recouped. The costly effects of Obamacare should be dealt with on a fast track basis.
Under your scenario many laws would not be overturned because challenging them is wasteful and frivolous. Guess we could cut the court system in half.
Actually, I think the cost to the taxpayers could wind up being $0 if so desired. Super Cooch could start a contributionary trust fund for people opposed to Obamacare to contribute to the cost of challenging. The coffers would be overflowing in a matter of weeks.
But you know, even if that happened, I still think the libs would be against what Super Cooch is doing. They just wouldn’t have the “expense skirt” issue to hide under.
Fear has a strange effect on people. And the fear that he might win this and use a tactic that the libs have been using for years to get what they couldn’t get passed at the ballot box (the courts) has them concerned.
Comment by BobH — August 2, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
Remember….on the epa ruling…boucher is with cooch….and a lot of the other Dems are, too. I always have mixed feelings when conserv. Dems lose elections.
Comment by phil chitwood — August 2, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
I’m glad to see the first step towards this monstrosity of a law repealed. But why did the Roanoke Times feel the need to add their own words to Mr. Cuccinelli’s quote? The article said:
“The government cannot draft an unwilling citizen into commerce just
so it can regulate him” under the Constitution’s commerce clause,
Cuccinelli said.
It seems to me his actual quoted words are a simple and true statement. Why try to limit the words he spoke with the qualifier about the commerce clause?
Comment by Andrew — August 2, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
Cucinelli is a bit of a nut, but this is one of his actions I can support. This lawsuit will help let us know if the 10th ammendment is still relevant or not. I know some people make fun of those of us who still think the 10th ammendment (and the Constitution) still matters. A refresher: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The heavy handed way the feds have dealt with states and individuals for years has ignored this ammendment. I am part of the minority who feels that this case is about the 10th ammendment and NOT about health care. It may be a Quixotic quest, but I feel it is one worth fighting.
Comment by wilbert — August 2, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
Ummm….actually a baseball pitcher would rather have someone go 0 for 5 versus 1 for 4. A batter would rather have a 1 for 4 day instead of an 0 for 5 day.
Comment by Stu — August 2, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
Ummm, but the pitcher would rather have a 1-4 won-loss record than 0-5.
Comment by Dan Casey — August 2, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
True, but in most sports conversations a win/loss record would be described as 1 and 4 or 0 and 5, not 1-4 or 0-5.
Comment by Stu — August 2, 2010 @ 4:39 pm
Honest to God Jack you’ve turned into the biggest hypocrite on this blog. And that’s no small achievement
Wow from racist to hypocrite,do I get a raise?
13.”Ummm, but the pitcher would rather have a 1-4 won-loss record than 0-5″
Kooch is undefeated in this case.
Comment by Jack Mcguire — August 2, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
Stu, how do they report it in the box scores?
Comment by Dan Casey — August 2, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
I’m on the record, we shall certainly see who “wins”.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 2, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
Racist and hypocrite are non exclusionary.
1-4 and 0-5 look like win-loss records to me. Stu joins Suzie fail in Dan mindreading.
wilbert, I can actually respect your point of view. I doubt Cuccinelli gives a rats ass about the 10th.
Comment by Kristen — August 2, 2010 @ 5:46 pm
“First he had to back off Breast-gate, the ill-fated and rather boobish attempt to replace a bare-chested Roman goddess on the state seal with a more modestly attired one.”
Stop it! Stop it! My sides hurt from laughing! You’re killing me Dan!!
Comment by Blue John — August 2, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
18.”Racist and hypocrite are non exclusionary”
Myself I tell it strait.Dont do PC or anything else.Im not a hypocrite at all..Im true to myself.Where am I a hypocrite!Site an example.
Comment by Jack McGuire — August 2, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
18.Racist and hypocrite are non exclusionary
Yea b**** and ho arent either.
Comment by Jack McGuire — August 2, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
More religious bigotry against Christians from the folks in here. That’s what all this griping against Cuccinelli is all about, and this is just a day or so after the Terri Gross threads where they all claimed to be Christian.
Comment by Suzie — August 2, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
As an avid baseball fan, the phrase going 1-4 is a batter phrase, as in 1 hit in 4 registered at bats. It also makes more sense given the context of what the AG is doing. He’s swinging away wildly at junk pitches and finally got lucky and hit a bloop single over the first baseman’s head. He’ll probably get thrown out trying to steal second base though. Now way he scores a run on this.
Comment by Other John — August 2, 2010 @ 10:24 pm
That should say ‘no way’. My mistake.
Comment by Other John — August 2, 2010 @ 10:24 pm
OJ,
Then tell us how to express the pitching record a pitcher who has 1 win and 4 losses. How is it expressed in the box scores?
Comment by Dan Casey — August 2, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
Let the record show that Dan believes a pitcher would rather see a batter go 1-4 against him as opposed to 0-5…
“But hey, going 1-4 is a better than 0-5 as any baseball pitcher will tell you” – DC
Is a better what?
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — August 2, 2010 @ 10:59 pm
It’s typically depicted in the same manner (1-4, 0-5, etc)…I’m just not willing to give the AG credit for a win, as he hasn’t won anything yet. Now, if the case is successful, I’ll agree to pitchers terms and a 1-4 won-loss record! Until then, he’s gone 1-4 in his at-bats and scored a bloop single. Basically, this mini victory is of little consequence at this stage of the game.
Comment by Other John — August 2, 2010 @ 11:08 pm
The other reason I like looking at this from a batter perspective rather than pitching, for a pitcher to win a game, they must have the assistance and help from their teammates to help defeat the other team. it’s a much larger concerted effort.
The AG’s efforts thus far have largely struck me as an AG-vs everyone else sort of deal, which is more like what happens in an at-bat. They have to face the pitcher first and foremost, but if they do manage to make contact, there’s still several other folks who can get him out. He’s largely failed to reach base in most of his wild endeavors, but got lucky on the healthcare battle, hence my batter’s bloop single reference.
I suppose it’s all a matter or perspective though, I’ve always been more a fan of the American League and the big-time sluggers, so I have a stronger pull toward batting references like hitting a home run, striking out, etc.
Comment by Other John — August 2, 2010 @ 11:17 pm
MMM,
Good to see you are in a proofreading mode tonight.
Shoulda been: “going 1-4 is better than 0-5.”
My apologies.
Comment by Dan Casey — August 2, 2010 @ 11:23 pm
Sorry to butt in, but I’m a huge basebal fan. Dan, for a pitcher who has 1 win and 4 loses you would also add and say and 5 no decisions out of 10 starts.
A 1 and 4 pitcher may not be a reflection on how good the pitcher is but how weak the relief pitching is.
This is especially true in the modern era coaches who focus on “Pitch counts” and are prone to pull a pitcher who may be leading or be tied in game for a relief pitcher in the misguided belief that the manager needs to “Save” the arm of the pitcher based on pitch count. Interestingly, I listened to a interview with ex dodgers coach Tommy Lasorda who chastised current managers for managing by the “Numbers’ Lasorda, and I agree believes to manage pitchers you must know your guy on a personal level and make a judgement call based on the fire and desire in his eye that day rather than how many pitches he has thrown.
Comment by Cold n P — August 2, 2010 @ 11:26 pm
“Now way he scores a run on this.”
Scalia has already expressed skepticism of the challenges. Game over.
Comment by Art Hill — August 2, 2010 @ 11:32 pm
Naw Dan, I wasn’t proofreading. I figured you knew what you were talking about… like batters going 1-4 and allllll those bloodletters back in the pre-MMGW days…
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — August 2, 2010 @ 11:53 pm
Tony, you’re “true to yourself”? Good for you. Considering you’ve changed names and refuse to cop to it, I’ll take that with a grain of salt.
Comment by Kristen — August 3, 2010 @ 8:08 am
#22 Do you even have “an honest bone in your body”? Disgusting, baiting and ignorant, the trifecta of Trolls!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 4, 2010 @ 8:57 am