It’s also possible that there are Democratic state AGs who believe that there are unconstitutional elements to the law but who held off from filing suit for political reasons.
Certainly, but unless they come out and say so we have no reason to assume that’s the case.
It’s possible, but it’s worth remembering that those who see the scheme as unconstitutional are applying a very originalist outlook to the Constitution to reach that analytical result.
As a general principle, you don’t find too many originalist Democrats; Dems tend to be more the “living, breathing, evolving standards of decency” type constructionists.
So (as I said above) this is why correlation is not causation: it might not be that politics is making the action happen here; it may be that if you’re an originalist, you are simultaneously (a) much more likely to be a Republican, and (b) much more likely to hold a good-faith belief that this legislation is unconstitutional.
North Dakota elects Democrats to Congress because it’s a farm state and because they want those farm susbsidies. In every other way, it’s a right wing state. This is the state where Jesus Camp was shot. There’s also a lot of anti-government/white supremacist/ militia culture going on in the rural parts of the state. Culturally, North Dakota might as well be part of the deep south. Don’t be fooled by the Congressional delegation. That’s not about any kind of progressive sentiment in the state, that’s about bringing home the pork. It’s paradoxical, and arguably hypocritical, but those people voting for Kent Conrad and Earl Pomeroy and Byron Dorgan are mostly hardcore conservatives. North Dakota is only progressive when it comes to its own financial self-interest.
You have the same reason supporting your assumption that the Republican plaintiff AG’s are acting politically – the nearly-uniform Democratic AG absence from the litigation.
Bricker, I kind of wish you’d drop the pretense that these lawsuits have anything to do with any kind of sincere or authentic Consitutional questions. It’s all just political grandstanding. It’s theater and empty symbolism. It doesn’t deserve to be credited as any kind of ingenuous Constitutional question. The AG’s and Governors involved are simply pandering to their constutents and nothing more.
I don’t know that to be true. And on the academic side, there is corresponding difference of opinion. Ilya Somin, for example, writes a good analysis of the view here. He’s an Associate Professor at George Mason University School of Law – what constituents is he pandering to?
That, and the fact that Democratic AGs are almost infinitely less likely to believe that the bill is unconstitutional, as Bricker noted.
Farm subsidies are hardly the province of Democratic lawmakers. Both parties are feeding at that trough. Plus, there is a deep rooted history of (frankly, unexpected) social liberalism in the plains states. It’s not just about subsidies.
AGs are political creatures regardless which party they belong to.
So yeah, this is almost certainly a decidedly political decision by both sides. Thing is those wanting to kill the law almost certainly know they have a considerable uphill battle to prevail (by the majority of analysis and discussion I have seen around here and other places on that question). So, what they are more likely to achieve is to make it a closed question in which the SCOTUS firmly embeds the notion of mandates in the law. Pretty much the opposite of what they want (presumably) to happen.
As such bringing the case is really stupid. Rather they want to pander to some constituents so they get voted in again (or elevated to Governor or something) and are willing to lose a case they claim to care about for that purpose. That to me says they really do not give a shit about the issue, just the votes which equals a pure political decision.
There is no social liberalism in rural North Dakota. Believe me, I know. I know the state well.