Yesterday, King County Superior Court Judge Sharon Armstrong declined to issue an emergency injunction ordering Washington state attorney general and wannabe governor Rob McKenna to revise his filings in the lawsuit seeking to toss out the Affordable Care Act, largely on the grounds that the court did not have the authority to tell the AG how to do his job. Okay.
But read between the lines and you'll find that in issuing her ruling Judge Armstrong basically affirmed the plaintiff's major claim—that McKenna has misled the public about the intent of his lawsuit. Armstrong ruled that in court, McKenna has held a "consistent legal position" that the entire ACA should be tossed out, while dismissing McKenna's many public statements that he was only seeking to overturn the individual mandate as mere "political statements."
No shit, Sherlock. As I wrote over a 15 months ago:
In the court of public opinion, McKenna has repeatedly argued that he's only challenging two unconstitutional provisions of the health care act, that the more popular components of the health care act are "not affected" at all by his lawsuit. Yet in a court of law—you know, the court that really matters—McKenna argues that these two provisions cannot be severed from the act as a whole and thus asks the judge to toss out the entire package. Yes, even the provisions regarding 26-year-olds and preexisting conditions.
How lawyerly of him. No, how totally fucking dishonest.
It very well may be perfectly legal for McKenna to be totally fucking dishonest. I dunno. I'm not an attorney. But having a court affirm that isn't exactly what I would call a victory.