As Jim Arndt of Pretty Important Politics notes, Wisconsin actually has a Democratic Attorney General candidate, and his name is Scott Hassett. Hassett, a former DNR Secretary, hasn’t done much (at least not that I’ve seen) during the 2010 election cycle, but he did appear on “Sly in the Morning” yesterday, and during the interview Hassett challenged Attorney General JB Van Hollen’s reasoning for suing the federal government over the individual health insurance mandate.
In an email sent to campaign supporters, Hassett noted Van Hollen’s political motivation for opposing health care reform:
Wisconsin faces a number of public safety challenges…keeping the state free from health care reform certainly isn’t one of them.
Why then, you wonder, would the current Attorney General waste time and taxpayer dollars pursuing a frivolous lawsuit aimed at keeping the health care reform bill passed by Congress and signed by the President, from being enacted in Wisconsin?
The answer is simple: partisan politics. But just because we know JB Van Hollen is a partisan politician seeking to use this as an election year boost, doesn’t make it any less egregious. Wisconsin expects and deserves an Attorney General who is the people’s lawyer not the lawyer for the Republican party.
We need your help and support to keep building the strong campaign that will return independence and integrity to the AG’s office. Visit my website www.hassettforag.com to donate today.
This is the time to come together to make health care reform work for the hundreds of thousands of families, children, and seniors who will benefit from the bill our democratically elected representatives voted into law. This is the time for leadership on important public safety issues we face. This is the time we need an AG who will stand up for consumers and for our environment, who will stand up for us.
Hasset’s statement demonstrates that he is unqualified to be the Attorney General. He calls Van Hollen’s proposed lawsuit “frivolous” without deference to the law defining what is “frivolous.” For example, Under Wisconsin law, the action, special proceeding, counterclaim, defense or cross complaint is also frivolous if:
“the party or the party’s attorney knew, or should have known” that it “was without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” Wis. Stat. § 814.025(3).
As IT has pointed out, Van Hollen’s proposed suit may be politically motivated but it is not frivolous.:
http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2010/03/statement-of-governor-james-e-doyle.html
Hassett’s false representations of the law casts a serious doubt on his ability to be a competent AG in my mind.
Yeah, while I have no doubt there’s some measure of political motivation to this lawsuit, I tend to agree with iT that there’s still legal standing for the suit.
Governor Jim Doyle, former AG, disagrees with you.
And Doyle is objectively wrong.
The Lopez and Morrison decisions make it clear that the commerce clause has limits. Where exactly that line is drawn is far from established precedent. As the states’ lawsuit challenges the limits of the commerce clause, there is definitely a non-frivilous legal basis. The States’ suit can be called a lot of things depending on your particular persuasion. However, “frivolous” is not one of those things.
I actually didn’t mind Doyle when he was AG – I voted for him in part because I liked that he was an aggressive consumer advocate for state residents. But since taking over the Governor’s mansion, he has very frequently displayed a stunning lack of consideration for the law and a willingness to base his decisions solely on political considerations even when they were in direct opposition to the law.
Are you a lawyer? I am not so I don’t know who is right…but I have seen a fair number of articles saying the state AG suits that have little chance of winning in court.