Slog Comments

 

Comments (23) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
BombasticMO 1
Woah. This is huge.
Posted by BombasticMO http://www.BombasticMo.com on May 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM · Report this
JonnoN 2
Take this teabagger down!
Posted by JonnoN http://www.backnine.org/ on May 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM · Report this
Original Andrew 3
VAPORIZE HIM!
Posted by Original Andrew on May 3, 2012 at 11:16 AM · Report this
Westlake, son! 4
You go, 90 girls!
Posted by Westlake, son! on May 3, 2012 at 11:16 AM · Report this
Original Andrew 5
Also, McKenna should be added to the Men Who Look Like Old Lesbians blog.
Posted by Original Andrew on May 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 6
@5 boo!
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on May 3, 2012 at 11:43 AM · Report this
laterite 7
Phoebe! How uncouth of you.
Posted by laterite on May 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM · Report this
8
"I don't have the legal expertise to predict the outcome"

SOMEONE ENSHRINE THIS QUOTE FOR ALL TIME
Posted by Reader01 on May 3, 2012 at 12:07 PM · Report this
seatackled 9
Geez, instead of interfering with the operation of the state of Washington, why don't these bitchez just go get a job?
Posted by seatackled on May 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM · Report this
seatackled 10
(And seriously? 7 people ahead of me and no one came up with get a job?)
Posted by seatackled on May 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM · Report this
merry 11
@ 9 - I see what you did there....

Posted by merry on May 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM · Report this
whitznd 12
"but whether the political dimensions of his office means McKenna is not fully subject to these rules, an issue that Washington's courts have never fully resolved. "

Seems to me we had some local elected judges make it legal and ok to lie in campaigns. That may be what the above quote is saying. I made a list of those judges to be sure to work to get them thrown out when they next come up for election.

unfortunately, the list is at home and I'm at work and I'll forget by then.

Posted by whitznd on May 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM · Report this
whitznd 13
"but whether the political dimensions of his office means McKenna is not fully subject to these rules, an issue that Washington's courts have never fully resolved. "

I wonder if the author was referring to the little law that 5 elected judges passed to make it ok to lie in campaigns. I made a list of them to be sure to vote them out of office next time they were up for election. One is gone so far. Sorry the list is at home and I'm at work. By the time I get home, I'll have forgotten about getting that list so you can all vote them out as well.
Posted by whitznd on May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM · Report this
the idiot formerly known as kk 14
Knoll Lowney is a blowhard publicity hound. McKenna is not these women's lawyer, so they have no basis for a complaint. Plus, the proper means of filing an ethics complaint is with the Bar Association, not in superior court.

This is a bullshit publicity stunt, perfectly in character for this moron.
Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on May 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM · Report this
amyl 15
Note to Jay Inslee: This would be a great time to remind people that you are an alternative to McKenna by, oh, I don't know, being in the public eye a little bit more. Just a thought...
Posted by amyl on May 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 16
@7 - really? I was speaking up for old lesbians!
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on May 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM · Report this
17
@14 - He isn't our lawyer, HE'S OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL. That means he's your lawyer too.
Posted by oneofthe90 on May 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM · Report this
seatackled 18
I couldn't really tell you if it's merely a publicity stunt or not, but if it is, I guess shouting, "No fair," is a pretty effective response.
Posted by seatackled on May 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM · Report this
19
Nice campaign stunt, but this lawsuit is going nowhere fast.
Posted by Mr. X on May 3, 2012 at 2:57 PM · Report this
20
Oh, and out here on the far left, lots of us remember that the individual mandate was originally thought up by a right-wing think tank.
Posted by Mr. X on May 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM · Report this
the idiot formerly known as kk 21
@17: You couldn't be more wrong. Read Article III, Section 21 of the State Constitution:

The attorney general shall be the legal adviser of the state officers, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.


I am not a state officer, are you?

And here are the laws prescribing the dutuies of the Attorney General (chapter 43.10 RCW). I'll save you some time by assuring you that those duties do not include taking on every person in the State as a client.
Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on May 3, 2012 at 4:35 PM · Report this
22
A couple thoughts: (1) Clients have multiple interests, not a single interest. So even if it is the State's interest to keep the non-mandate portions of the ACA, doing something contrary to that interest is not necessarily unethical because McKenna has to balance competing interests. He's explained that cost/resources are an important interest as well, and they are. By staying in the "group" of states, McKenna is saving money, which is another interest of the State. (2) On the misleading statements, I agree they are pretty finely parsed. But I don't know if the law requires the statements to be examined in a vacuum or if a more totality-of-the-circumstances test is used. Elsewhere, in other statements, McKenna has been more clear about what is going on with the severability issue. Does that mean the client (in other words, us folks) has been properly and ethically informed about the case, despite some possibly misleading omissions? Or are the omissions alone enough to get him in hot water. The Plaintiffs' ethics expert doesn't really get into that, but I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. More thoughts here: http://ziffblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/04…
Posted by David Ziff http://ziffblog.wordpress.com/ on May 4, 2012 at 1:45 AM · Report this
23
A couple thoughts: (1) Clients have multiple interests, not a single interest. So even if it is the State's interest to keep the non-mandate portions of the ACA, doing something contrary to that interest is not necessarily unethical because McKenna has to balance competing interests. He's explained that cost/resources are an important interest as well, and they are. By staying in the "group" of states, McKenna is saving money, which is another interest of the State. (2) On the misleading statements, I agree they are pretty finely parsed. But I don't know if the law requires the statements to be examined in a vacuum or if a more totality-of-the-circumstances test is used. Elsewhere, in other statements, McKenna has been more clear about what is going on with the severability issue. Does that mean the client (in other words, us folks) has been properly and ethically informed about the case, despite some possibly misleading omissions? Or are the omissions alone enough to get him in hot water. The Plaintiffs' ethics expert doesn't really get into that, but I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. More thoughts here: http://ziffblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/04…
Posted by David Ziff http://ziffblog.wordpress.com/ on May 4, 2012 at 1:46 AM · Report this

Add a comment