Heck opposes ‘junk lawsuits’? Since when?

Now, to be entirely fair to the congressman, let’s put it in context. First, the ad was not paid for or authorized by Heck’s campaign. It was put on the air by an outfit called the Political Action Committee of the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, or “The Orthopaedic PAC.”

And the ad in question is entirely about health care, praising Heck for opposing the Affordable Care Act. The line about Heck opposing “junk lawsuits” came in the context of medical malpractice litigation, not lawsuits in general.

But still, the idea that Heck opposes “junk lawsuits” is stunningly false, given that he voted for perhaps the mother of all junk lawsuits, litigation against President Barack Obama over his decision to delay full implementation of the Affordable Care Act on schedule. (Yes, the same Affordable Care Act that Heck and the House Republican caucus wants to repeal in its entirety!)

Now, Heck defends his vote, saying the president isn’t allowed to unilaterally decide whether to implement parts of a duly passed law while not implementing others. The separation of powers inherent in the U.S. Constitution reserves the legislative power to Congress, while mandating that the executive “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Fair enough.

But the fact of the matter is, Heck still voted to sue the president for not fully implementing the provisions of a law he hates and has personally voted more than once to repeal, the ultimate outcome of which lawsuit — in the best case scenario for the Republican plaintiffs — is a court order directing that the hated provision be implemented straightaway.

Yay for full ACA implementation? Or something?

No matter what else, that vote means that no one is ever again allowed to claim Heck, or any other member of Congress who who voted to sue the president, is “against junk lawsuits” or “for tort reform.” By that vote, Heck and all those acting or speaking on his behalf, have forever renounced that option. From now on, the most they could ever claim is that Heck and his fellow plaintiffs are against some junk lawsuits, while fully and enthusiastically embracing others, depending upon who the defendant might be.

Oh, and by the way, in the medical context, being against “junk lawsuits” loosely translates to “barring the courthouse door to people who may have legitimately suffered mistreatment at the hands of a medical professional and who are now seeking redress in the only forum left available to them.” So, being against lawsuits in that context is not a good thing, either. Anybody think the lawsuits naming Dr. Depak Desai as a defendant are “junk lawsuits”? Didn’t think so.