Cut off ALL federal funding to states that are threatening to sue over HCR.

[Union Yes]

Let them practice their sovereignty on their own dime. Without the Federal Government funding their state.

Let conservative states fund their own, if they want their sovereignty. It's hypocritical for conservative states to reach out for federal government money to balance their state budget deficits anyway.

Apply their ideology of "FUCK YOU, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN" to their states budget.

If they really want total state sovereignty then they must stop accepting ALL federal money.

[ZombieHorde]

1. What about the people who live in those states but support the HCR?

What about the kids of families who live in red states?

[rcrush]

3. Wild and crazy threats are more important than kids.

[rcrush]

2. ...

[paulsby]

4. so you punish states

that try to use DUE PROCESS and JUDICIAL REVIEW iow the PROPER pathways by taking away their funds?

and where is it written that states (AG's) that are challenging the constitutionality of a new and radical plan (that i support btw) want "total state sovereignty?"

every law is subject to judicial review, and the rule of law, due process, and constitution MATTERS.

all the AG's are doing is advocating a LEGAL position and asking for judicial review.

this is in line with seperation of powers, due process,and the constitution.

in our state, we have already seen the feds violate state sovereignty in (for example)prosecuting medical marijuana users. medical MJ has NO commerce clause issues despite what our SCOTUS says.

i am glad the HCR passed, and i am glad it is being challenged for constitutionality. when and if it is validated by the courts, the question will be answered.

the idea of PUNISHING states who DARE question the constitutionality of federal law smacks of the WORST kind of authoritarian nonsense.

[yodoobo]

10. No. you punish states that abuse

due process and judicial review.

[paulsby]

14. and that's the worst kind of authoritarian nonsense, as i said

this IS a radical bill

as many on the left and right have mentioned, because it requires citizens to purchase a private product (in this case - insurance) by decree of the federal govt.

that is a constitutioonal question and it should be addressed.

and only an authoritarian who dislikes due process and judicial review would PUNISH the states for merely seeking review.

that would be a heinous use of federal govt. power - punishing those who DARE QUESTION via ENTIRELY LEGAL MEANS the ALL MIGHTY AND POWERFUL OZ...

think about what you are saying

it doesn't matter if you support the bill or not. what matters is that you support rule of law and judicial review.

that you don't is sad, but not surprising.

if this was a bill you disagreed with, imposed by the federal govt. you'd likely WELCOME it's being challenged on constitutional grouonds

which smacks of anything but dispassionate respect for due process

[LeftyMom]

5. Congrats!

This post is today's winner of the daily Stupidest Post on DU contest! This makes you a finalist for the coveted Stupidest Post of the Year award, results will be posted in January of 2011! Thanks for your entry and good luck! :thumbsup:

[rcrush]

6. There should be a DUZY category for that

The dumbshit post category.

[Better Today]

7. I can't see that as any type of right choice. They have a right to complain

they even have a right to challenge. I could maybe see suspending any related funds till the court case(s) are over, but not all Federal funds. Furthermore, particularly since not all pols or all people in those states agree with the decision to sue, it seems wrongheaded to make everyone suffer (those that are most in need of the funds) because of a few rich, mean, white guys.

[bobbolink]

8. Yeah, kill me off. Then, you can happily dance on my grave.

Thank you so very much for your "progressive" love.

[Infomaniac]

9. I believe there is a narrow precedent

It happened about 30 years or so ago. States that did not raise their drinking age to 21 lost all matching federal highway funds. I could see Congress trying to provide a monetary incentive to get states to get with the HCR plan. I think it would be more of a carrot than a stick.

[DonCoquixote]

11. Florida

Florida went Blue in 2008, and our GOP has gotten into Panic mode, especially with AG BIll Mcollum wanting to use his suit to primp his gubernatioral election campaign.

However, I digress, because I know that many in the so called "Blue" States tend to love dumping on us progressives down here. Of course, these are the same fine people that would never elect a GOP, like the folks in Ted Kennedy's old district. They act like the solution is just to saw off the parts of the country they hate, which, in a sense, just makes them akin to the Rednecks and teabaggers they claim to hate so much.

[marmar]

12. Umm, Michigan is not a conservative state....and our Attorney General has threatened to sue.

nt

[Naturalist111]

13. Cut off their road funding and everything else but health

and schooling. That should do it.

[SeattleGirl]

16. So, you don't care if many of the people in some of the states

with AG's threatening to sue do NOT agre with that idea? You don't care about them? Oh, okay. One person in those states decides to do something like this, and you want to condemn the entire state?

Gee, thanks.

[SeattleGirl]

15. Oh hell no!

I live in Washington state; we are hardly a bastion of right wingerism (though admitedly, there are pockets of wingerism here). Our Republican AG decided all on his itty bitty own to do this, and the guv is PISSED, as are a lot of people. In this case, McKenna (the AG) not NOT represent many of us here, including our guv and many in our state legislature.

Nope, nope, nope. Not a good idea.

[Hawkeye-X]

17. Colorado doesn't want to sue, but we're working on removing our stupid AG

Our Democratic Governor and Congress approves of the HCR plan (even tried to pass single payer at state level, but failed). Our teabagger AG is unqualified to be an ambulance chaser, much less an AG.

Hawkeye-X