Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway announced yesterday that “he will not file a lawsuit against the federal government in trying to refuse the legislation.” “I do not intend to use my authority as Kentucky Attorney General to sign our Commonwealth onto a health care lawsuit against the federal government, because I will not waste taxpayer dollars on a political stunt,” Conway said. “Trey Grayson’s gimmick may be good ‘tea party’ politics, but it’s based on questionable legal principles,” Conway said, referring to the Secretary of State’s request that he file a lawsuit.

I think this is an important point. The 13 or so attorneys general who are suing the government to exempt their states from the health law’s individual requirement and Medicaid expansion provisions are doing so in their capacity as elected politicians, not lawyers and the sooner we all stop pretending that their lawsuits are grounded in a serious legal interpretation of the constitution, the better. At least 4 of the 13 AGs are running for higher office (either Governor or Senator) and the rest are up for re-election. Their suits are designed to rally political support, not lay down new legal doctrine.

I’m no lawyer, but the fact that the Florida suit doesn’t contain any references to past Supreme Court decisions or legal precedent suggests that it’s frivolous. The 22-page lawsuit reads like a Republican manifesto and doesn’t site examples of when the courts have agreed with the AG’s legal interpretations:

- The Act represents an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals living in the Plaintiffs’ respective states,

- The Act contains several unfunded mandates that will cost state governments significantly.

- Further, the Act converts what had been a voluntary federal-state partnership into a compulsory top-down federal program in which the discretion of the Plaintiffs and their sister states is removed.

More importantly, as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) points out, the health care law already allows states to “go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate” as long as “they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill.” “Why don’t you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?” the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. “Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?”

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had a very uncomfortable interview with Larry King last night, in which he again struggled to explain how the Senate health care bill was different from the legislation he signed into law in 2006. Romney described majority rule as an “unconscionable abuse of power,” referred to insurance regulations as “maraschino cherries on top of a pile of dirt” and failed to come up with a convincing answer about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

In the end, Larry King looked like Tim Russert, while Romney seemed desperate to shore up his conservative credentials and defend his Obama-like accomplishment:

Watch a compilation:

The Washington Posts’ Greg Sargent notes Romney’s strong endorsement of the individual mandate, but it’s also worth pointing out that he still can’t decide if the mandate is constitutional. His position is difficult to define:

1. He signed a law that requires everyone in Massachusetts to purchase health care coverage and regularly cites the states 98% insurance rate during media appearances. In this interview, he describes the approach as “conservative.”

2. He believes that the 13 states suing the federal government over the constitutionality of the individual mandate have a legitimate case and wants to repeal the Senate bill, which includes the mandate.

3. He refuses to say if he thinks the individual mandate in the Senate bill is constitutional and does not mention the policy on his website.

In other words, he believes that requiring all Massachusetts residents to purchase coverage is “conservative” since it tells people they “have to take personal responsibility” for their health rather than “go to the hospital if they get a serious illness, and they get treated for free by government.” But requiring all Americans to purchase coverage, however, is intrusive and probably unconstitutional. Got that?

Yesterday, the Senate burned approximately 7.5 hours of debate time considering a package of fixes to the Senate health care bill, paving the way for a final vote before the end of the week. “Under reconciliation rules, the Senate will debate the fixes bill for 20 hours, then hold rapid-fire votes on amendments. That phase, being called a vote-a-rama, could begin as soon as Wednesday night and is likely to end sometime Friday,” the Washington Post explains.

Republicans are trying to delay the process, which would remove some of the “special deals” they have rallied against, by offering numerous amendments and challenging the Senate parliamentarian to invalidate broad sections of the bill. Yesterday, GOP senators offered 5 different amendments relating to Medicare savings and tax increases, but the most heated dispute occurred over Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) proposal to eliminate so-called “sweetheart deals”"for Tennessee, Hawaii, Louisiana, Montana, Connecticut, and frontier States.”

At around 6pm, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) — who had asked for a provision that would have increased federal Medicaid matching fund for disaster areas — took to the floor to defend what McCain and the Republicans have dubbed the “Louisiana Purchase.” Landrieu explained that local Republican lawmakers openly asked for the provision to avert a scheduled cut in the federal Medicaid matching fund. Federal recovery dollars artificially inflated Louisiana’s income and led to an adjustment in the Medicaid funding formula, Landrieu said. As a result, the state is scheduled to receive less matching funds for the Medicaid program beginning in 2011:

LANDRIEU: I’d like to say this amendment is a stunt that really doesn’t deserve the time that I’m even going to give to explain the portion of it that refers to Louisiana. And the reason I say it’s a stunt is because it’s actually written for television or the internet. It’s not written for any serious debate here, and in my view, it is beneath the Senator from Arizona, who at one time was a candidate for president of this country. The reason I say it’s a stunt is because the words ‘sweetheart’ are actually written in this amendment.

Watch it:

Unfortunately, depriving hurricane survivors of health care funding isn’t the only “stunt” Republicans are pulling. The party has introduced numerous frivolous amendments to to delay the process. Consider these:

- To protect the democratic process and the right of the people of the District of Columbia to define marriage. (Bennett, #3568)

- To revoke the powers given the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (Coburn, #3558)

- To require that each new bureaucrat added to any department or agency of the Federal Government for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act be offset by a reduction of 1 existing bureaucrat at such department or agency. (Coburn, #3557)

- To reduce the cost of providing federally funded prescription drugs by eliminating fraudulent payments and prohibiting coverage of Viagra for child molesters and rapists and for drugs intended to induce abortion. (Coburn, #3556)

- To repeal the new $375 million program directing the very same Federal Government that has amassed a $12 trillion debt to lecture Americans about financial responsibility. (Coburn, #3563)

- Prohibiting use of funds to fund the Associate of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). (Vitter, #3554)

Lest you think Republicans are simply following McCain’s advise and retaliating against Democrats for passing health care reform, be advised that they’ve introduced identical amendments earlier last year. And then they wonder why the bill was passed on a partisan vote.

Earlier this month, The Weekly Standard accused President Obama of selling a judgeship to win over Rep. Jim Matheson’s (D-UT) vote on health care. The Standard’s John McCormack first published a blog post floating the conspiracy that Obama had nominated Scott Matheson, Jr, the brother of Rep. Matheson, to the Tenth Circuit to pressure the Blue Dog Democrat into supporting the Senate’s health care reform bill. That evening, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called for an “independent investigation” of the White House on Larry King Live and the story was immediately picked up by Drudge and other conservative media.

On Monday, a day after the House approved the Senate legislation, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) again suggested that Matheson voted for the bill because of the alleged quid pro quo:

BARRASSO: What a coincidence! In Utah, a member from Utah who voted for the bill, he was against it and then he was for it. And what a coincidence, his brother just got named to be a federal judge. How do you make those decisions?

Watch it:

Barrasso apparently didn’t know that the right wing conspiracy theory had already been de-legitimated. The nomination did not sway Rep. Matheson’s vote. He voted against the Senate bill last week.

Barrasso’s spokesperson is now claiming that the senator simply “misspoke.” “I think there were a lot of different stories last week about the appointment, and that’s how he got or had the wrong idea,” the spokesperson claimed. In their rush to make false allegations against Democrats, conservative blogs and Fox News propagated unsubstantiated stories that unfairly tarnished Scott Matheson’s legal qualifications.