Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Women File Emergency Injunction Against Rob McKenna's Healthcare Challenge

Posted by on Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit against state Attorney General Rob McKenna—which accuses him of violating his professional ethics and lying to Washington residents about his attempt to overturn Obama's healthcare reform act—announced today that they'd filed an emergency injunction against McKenna, asking a judge to force McKenna to reverse his healthcare pleadings before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Three women personally delivered injunction papers to McKenna's downtown Seattle office this morning, along with 2,100 signatures condemning McKenna's weasely healthcare reform doublespeak. McKenna has told Washington residents that he only seeks to invalidate the Affordable Care Act's controversial individual mandate, and that he supports the rest of the healthcare reform law. However, he's taken the opposite position in his legal arguments and has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to kill the law in its entirety—which would invalidate numerous women's and children's healthcare provisions and bring back lifetime caps on insurance coverage, among other things.

The emergency injunction asks that a King County Superior Court judge force McKenna to submit new pleadings to the U.S. Supreme Court immediately, supporting many critical provisions in the healthcare act that he's publicly stated he supports—before the court weighs in on the constitutionality of Obama's Affordable Care Act (which is expected to happen in June).

Nikki Mackey and her pile of legal papers.
  • I own this
  • Nikki Mackey and her pile of legal papers.
"I asked to be able to deliver these documents personally because I want to be able to face the person dictating my life expectancy—or attempting to," explained Nikki Mackey, a breast cancer survivor and plaintiff in the McKenna suit, after she passed the pile of papers to McKenna's receptionist. (McKenna wasn't in the building.)


"We’re asking for a hearing in seven days and we expect that we will receive it," says attorney Knoll Lowney, who represents the 96 women who are suing McKenna to reverse his legal arguments.

"This is an extraordinary case and we think that the judge is going to grant the injunction because Rob McKenna admits that the briefing he submitted to the U.S. Supreme court on severability is contrary to his clients interests," Knoll continues. "It’s hard to imagine a situation ever, that a state attorney would file a brief when he doesn’t believe in it and that he admits that it’s contrary to his clients interests."

 

Comments (5) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
Wow.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on May 16, 2012 at 1:35 PM
2
Geez, what a bunch of sluts who should go get a job.
Posted by seatackled on May 16, 2012 at 1:36 PM
Daddy Love 3
OF COURSE Rob McKenna wants it both ways!

*giggle*
Posted by Daddy Love on May 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM
YakHerder 4
Applaud the spectacle, but there are at least three ways that this case could be unceremoniously dismissed about 10 seconds after landing in front of a judge:

1) The big one is STANDING. Not one of these plaintiffs can show that McKenna's actions have caused her a "personalized injury in fact." That is, they can't show that his arguments before the Supreme Court actually had any harmful effect on them personally (as opposed to the public at large). At most, it might have theoretically helped persuade the Supremes to strike down the law (which they have not yet even done!) Not good enough. AND they can't show that, even if they win, the supposed "harm" will be redressed: the Supremes might go ahead and strike down the law anyway.

2) POLITICAL QUESTION: Courts don't get involved in policy arguments better left to the other two "political" branches of government. The court could decline to hear the case altogether. "Don't like him? Vote him out."

3) FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM: Even if everything they accuse Rob McKenna of doing is true, there's no law against advancing a coherent legal argument just because if it contradicts a public stand you'd taken before.
Posted by YakHerder on May 16, 2012 at 7:25 PM
the idiot formerly known as kk 5
Knoll Lowney is either a publicity-mad jerk or a sick, sad shell of a person. Or both.
Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on May 16, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy