Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s decision to join a lawsuit challenging the controversial health care legislation has raised a number of questions. Here are answers to some of the most important:
Q. Isn’t this all about politics?
A. Of course it is. That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
Zoeller, like all but one of the other state attorneys general bringing the suit, is an elected Republican. Zoeller emphasizes the fact that the health care bill was adopted without Republican votes – yet that has nothing to do with its constitutionality.
But not all politics are bad, and the nation is often well-served when one party challenges the legitimacy of the other’s actions.
Nor is politics always pure. Democrats criticizing the lawsuit overlook the many liberal-inspired challenges to various laws.
Republicans who want the courts to overturn the law have also criticized “activist judges” for overturning “the will of the people” as represented by Congress.
Q. Indiana is broke. How can the state pay for this suit?
A. As far as the state spending extra money on the lawsuit, the amount is only a few thousand dollars, at most. Indiana will share the $50,000 total maximum cost to file the case with the 13 other states.
The other costs will be in the labor of the attorney general’s office salaried attorneys, who would be paid the same amount if they didn’t handle this case.
Of course, the more time they spend on the health care legislation, the less they will spend on other issues and cases important to Hoosiers.
Q. Since the suit is already filed, why did Indiana join in? Won’t the ultimate court rulings be the same whether the lawsuit is filed by 13 or 14 states?
Zoeller argues that his staff has already spent much time researching the issue on behalf of Sen. Richard Lugar. Zoeller argues that his staff, particularly Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, is ahead of other states in understanding some aspects of the legislation and suggests their involvement could make the states filing the suit more likely to win.
Democrats may scoff at the idea that Indiana attorneys will make the difference, but they should not underestimate the quality of the state attorney general’s staff.
Q. The main argument seems to be that requiring all Americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. I have to buy car insurance. Why shouldn’t I have to buy health insurance?
A. The argument against comparing the two is that driving is not a right. No one forces you to drive, whereas you would have to buy health insurance under the new legislation just for living.
Another argument is that the Constitution gives states the power to make requirements on its citizens not reserved for the federal government.
Q. Does this lawsuit have a chance of success?
A. Lawsuit opponents say the health care legislation will survive constitutional challenges. They note that those who do not buy insurance would be taxed, and the Constitution clearly gives the government the right to tax citizens. Opponents also note the many court precedents giving the federal government great power.
But the Supreme Court has tilted more to the right, and opponents should not simply assume the lawsuit will fail.
Q. So, if the state attorneys general win, does that mean the health care legislation is rendered null and void?
A. Not necessarily. Courts could rule the mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional but that other aspects of the law meet the constitutional tests.
