Putting it much better than yours T (there's a shocker), General Baker let Sonny know just why the litigation is so wrong-headed. His correspondence was recently released:
In short, this litigation is likely to fail and will consume significant amounts of taxpayers' hard-earned money in the process.Throughout the history of this nation, our courts have been reluctant to overturn legislative acts unless a clear constitutional violation is shown. While your letter does not suggest specific claims in the proposed litigation, I will address two that have been raised publicly regarding the law. Some believe that the law's requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. I believe such an argument is highly unlikely to succeed. In fact, earlier this month, an appellate court decision rejecting such arguments was issued in the only case I am aware of to be litigated on this topic to date.As you may know, then-Governor Mitt Romney proposed and signed into law in2006 a bill thatrequires all Massachusetts residents to purchase health insurance. [Egads. Mittens!? Really??!] A suit was brought against theCommonwealth by a plaintiff who alleged that the requirement violated his rights under the Fifth,Seventh and Eighth Amendments of the United States Constitution and various provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution. In Fountas v. Commissioner of the Department of Revenue, 2010 Mass.App. Unpub. Lexis 223 (Marchs, 2010), the Massachusetts Court of Appeals rejected all of those arguments.I also understand that some believe that the Act's expansion of eligibility for Medicaid violates states' rights by requiring the state to spend additional money to insure more people. While there may be disagreement with that provision as a matter of budgetary priority and policy, I am sure you are also aware that Medicaid is a joint federal-state program in which Georgia's participation is voluntary and in which federal funding provides approximately 60% of our state Medicaid funds. The right of the United States govemment to require action by states as a condition of receiving federal funding has been litigated repeatedly, including in the United States Supreme Court, and is well established in our nation's constitutional law* * *For the reasons stated above, I cannot in good conscience file a lawsuit against the United States that I believe has little or no chance of success and will undoubtedly consume significant state resources in atime of severe budgetary crisis.