L.A. Times: Unprecedented’ House Lawsuit Is Turning Into a Real Problem
for Obama
The long shot Republican-backed House lawsuit that alleged 'president' Barack Obama has abused his executive power is actually causing some problems for the 'president', a new report claims.
According to the Los Angeles Times, a federal judge is expected to soon decide whether or not to dismiss the suit, but due to an amended complaint and a recent Supreme Court ruling, the ball might be in the Republicans’ court. The report said the lawsuit is “turning into a real problem” for the 'president'.
The lawsuit, which all House Democrats opposed during the vote in July, alleges that Obama’s aides assumed the power to spend $178 billion over 10 years to reimburse health insurance providers who covered co-payments for low-income people who bought health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
While a request for an annual appropriation was initially submitted, the Los Angeles Times reported that Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell and other officials decided the “cost-sharing payments” to insurers were just like an entitlement built into the law — thus congressional approval was not needed.
“The power of the purse is the very thumping heart of the legislative function in our system of separation of powers,” Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University professor who was hired to lead the lawsuit, told the Los Angeles Times.
Despite Democrats’ initial complaints, House Speaker John Boehner has remained adamant that the lawsuit is simply to keep the 'president' and his power in check, not impeach him, according to Fox News. (too bad because this imposter should be arrested and hung for treason)
The Los Angeles Times reported that the outcome of the lawsuit most likely will not result in a dissolution of Obama’s healthcare law, but it could drastically raise the cost of insurance premiums.
Despite the hurdles House Republicans face with their lawsuit, experts who have followed the case closely have said it won’t be a “slam dunk” for the Obama administration and don’t expect it to go away quietly.
Simon Lazarus, a lawyer for the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, told the Los Angeles Times that there is “at least a possibility of Turley prevailing on the motion to dismiss,” but believes the administration will win in the end.
Walter Dellinger, a former Clinton administration lawyer, told the Los Angeles times that he doesn’t believe the courts will finally rule on the suit.
“There has never been a lawsuit by a 'president' against Congress or by Congress against the 'president' over how to interpret a statute,” the Washington-based lawyer said.
The unprecedented House lawsuit against 'president' Obama that was once derided as a certain loser looks stronger now and may soon deliver an early legal round to Republican lawmakers complaining of executive branch overreach.
A federal judge is expected to decide shortly whether to dismiss the suit, but thanks to an amended complaint and a recent Supreme Court ruling, the Republican-backed case has a much better chance of proceeding, attorneys agree.
At issue is whether the House may sue in court to defend its constitutionally granted "power of the purse" if the 'president' spends money that was not appropriated by Congress.
The lawsuit alleges that Obama's top aides quietly claimed the power to spend $178 billion over the next decade to reimburse health insurers for covering the cost of co-payments for low-income people who buy subsidized insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
The administration initially submitted a request for an annual appropriation — about $4 billion last year — but then changed course. Officials, including Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell, decided the so-called cost-sharing payments to insurers were mandatory and were akin to an entitlement written into law, so there was no need to seek additional approval from Congress.
House Republicans disagree and say the administration's spending is unconstitutional.
"The power of the purse is the very thumping heart of the legislative function in our system of separation of powers," said Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University professor who was hired in November to lead the lawsuit.
Even if a federal judge allows the complaint to proceed, the lawsuit still faces a series of hurdles. And regardless of who wins, the future of Obama's healthcare law does not appear to turn on the outcome. However, insurance premiums could rise sharply if the cost-sharing payments are cut off.
In May, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer voiced exasperation when a Justice Department lawyer tried to explain why the Obama administration was entitled to spend the money without the approval of Congress. Why is that "not an insult to the Constitution?" Collyer asked.
But the more formidable barrier now facing the lawsuit is a procedural rule. Judges have repeatedly said lawmakers do not have standing to re-fight political battles in court.
In an oft-cited ruling, the Supreme Court in 1997 tossed out a lawsuit by six members of Congress who contended the newly passed Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional. Justices said the lawmakers were not sufficiently harmed by the law to merit bringing a lawsuit.
But in late June, the high court gave the House lawsuit an apparent boost when it ruled the Arizona Legislature had standing to sue in federal court to defend its power to draw election districts. Although the Arizona lawmakers lost their case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the Legislature could sue because it was an "institutional plaintiff asserting an institutional injury."
Ginsburg in a footnote said the court was not deciding "the question of whether Congress has standing to bring a suit against the president." But administration supporters acknowledge the high court's opinion in the Arizona case increases the odds the suit will survive.
When it was filed last summer, the lawsuit was largely dismissed as a feeble gesture unlikely to succeed. It originally accused the president of overstepping his power by delaying an implementation deadline spelled out in the Affordable Care Act.
That put Republicans in the awkward position of faulting the Obama administration for moving too slowly to enforce provisions of a healthcare law that they were simultaneously trying to repeal.
Turley helped focus the case on the appropriations dispute, and those who have followed it closely are not so confident it will go away soon.
The case "is certainly not a slam-dunk" for the administration, said Simon Lazarus, a lawyer for the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. "Judge Collyer was annoyed with the government's argument, so there is at least a possibility of Turley prevailing on the motion to dismiss."
But Lazarus remains confident the administration will win in the end.
Washington attorney Walter Dellinger, a former Clinton administration lawyer, believes the courts will not finally rule on the House lawsuit. "There has never been a lawsuit by a 'president' against Congress or by Congress against the 'president' over how to interpret a statute," he said.
If the courts open the door to such claims, lawmakers in the future will opt to sue whenever they lose a political battle, Dellinger said. "You'd see immediate litigation every time a law was passed," he said.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-lawsuit-20150820-story.html?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+First+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=21445979&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8I3hNe9YI8oQo3O5Yihj_TWP6uEp06LS_SQUGLdwrAQP1qy7TzFoIvCKJss53CdtssCh9aBF7-s7NgJH-QMZISrH23ow&_hsmi=21445979
According to the Los Angeles Times, a federal judge is expected to soon decide whether or not to dismiss the suit, but due to an amended complaint and a recent Supreme Court ruling, the ball might be in the Republicans’ court. The report said the lawsuit is “turning into a real problem” for the 'president'.
The lawsuit, which all House Democrats opposed during the vote in July, alleges that Obama’s aides assumed the power to spend $178 billion over 10 years to reimburse health insurance providers who covered co-payments for low-income people who bought health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
While a request for an annual appropriation was initially submitted, the Los Angeles Times reported that Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell and other officials decided the “cost-sharing payments” to insurers were just like an entitlement built into the law — thus congressional approval was not needed.
US President Barack Obama speaks at Temple Emanu-El November 6, 2013 in Dallas, Texas. Obama spoke about the Affordable Care Act amid technical problems which have hurt the rollout of the healthcare marketplace. AFP PHOTO/Brendan SMIALOWSKI (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
Despite Democrats’ initial complaints, House Speaker John Boehner has remained adamant that the lawsuit is simply to keep the 'president' and his power in check, not impeach him, according to Fox News. (too bad because this imposter should be arrested and hung for treason)
The Los Angeles Times reported that the outcome of the lawsuit most likely will not result in a dissolution of Obama’s healthcare law, but it could drastically raise the cost of insurance premiums.
Despite the hurdles House Republicans face with their lawsuit, experts who have followed the case closely have said it won’t be a “slam dunk” for the Obama administration and don’t expect it to go away quietly.
Simon Lazarus, a lawyer for the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, told the Los Angeles Times that there is “at least a possibility of Turley prevailing on the motion to dismiss,” but believes the administration will win in the end.
Walter Dellinger, a former Clinton administration lawyer, told the Los Angeles times that he doesn’t believe the courts will finally rule on the suit.
“There has never been a lawsuit by a 'president' against Congress or by Congress against the 'president' over how to interpret a statute,” the Washington-based lawyer said.
The unprecedented House lawsuit against 'president' Obama that was once derided as a certain loser looks stronger now and may soon deliver an early legal round to Republican lawmakers complaining of executive branch overreach.
A federal judge is expected to decide shortly whether to dismiss the suit, but thanks to an amended complaint and a recent Supreme Court ruling, the Republican-backed case has a much better chance of proceeding, attorneys agree.
At issue is whether the House may sue in court to defend its constitutionally granted "power of the purse" if the 'president' spends money that was not appropriated by Congress.
The lawsuit alleges that Obama's top aides quietly claimed the power to spend $178 billion over the next decade to reimburse health insurers for covering the cost of co-payments for low-income people who buy subsidized insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
The administration initially submitted a request for an annual appropriation — about $4 billion last year — but then changed course. Officials, including Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell, decided the so-called cost-sharing payments to insurers were mandatory and were akin to an entitlement written into law, so there was no need to seek additional approval from Congress.
House Republicans disagree and say the administration's spending is unconstitutional.
"The power of the purse is the very thumping heart of the legislative function in our system of separation of powers," said Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University professor who was hired in November to lead the lawsuit.
Even if a federal judge allows the complaint to proceed, the lawsuit still faces a series of hurdles. And regardless of who wins, the future of Obama's healthcare law does not appear to turn on the outcome. However, insurance premiums could rise sharply if the cost-sharing payments are cut off.
In May, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer voiced exasperation when a Justice Department lawyer tried to explain why the Obama administration was entitled to spend the money without the approval of Congress. Why is that "not an insult to the Constitution?" Collyer asked.
But the more formidable barrier now facing the lawsuit is a procedural rule. Judges have repeatedly said lawmakers do not have standing to re-fight political battles in court.
In an oft-cited ruling, the Supreme Court in 1997 tossed out a lawsuit by six members of Congress who contended the newly passed Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional. Justices said the lawmakers were not sufficiently harmed by the law to merit bringing a lawsuit.
But in late June, the high court gave the House lawsuit an apparent boost when it ruled the Arizona Legislature had standing to sue in federal court to defend its power to draw election districts. Although the Arizona lawmakers lost their case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the Legislature could sue because it was an "institutional plaintiff asserting an institutional injury."
Ginsburg in a footnote said the court was not deciding "the question of whether Congress has standing to bring a suit against the president." But administration supporters acknowledge the high court's opinion in the Arizona case increases the odds the suit will survive.
When it was filed last summer, the lawsuit was largely dismissed as a feeble gesture unlikely to succeed. It originally accused the president of overstepping his power by delaying an implementation deadline spelled out in the Affordable Care Act.
That put Republicans in the awkward position of faulting the Obama administration for moving too slowly to enforce provisions of a healthcare law that they were simultaneously trying to repeal.
Turley helped focus the case on the appropriations dispute, and those who have followed it closely are not so confident it will go away soon.
The case "is certainly not a slam-dunk" for the administration, said Simon Lazarus, a lawyer for the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. "Judge Collyer was annoyed with the government's argument, so there is at least a possibility of Turley prevailing on the motion to dismiss."
But Lazarus remains confident the administration will win in the end.
Washington attorney Walter Dellinger, a former Clinton administration lawyer, believes the courts will not finally rule on the House lawsuit. "There has never been a lawsuit by a 'president' against Congress or by Congress against the 'president' over how to interpret a statute," he said.
If the courts open the door to such claims, lawmakers in the future will opt to sue whenever they lose a political battle, Dellinger said. "You'd see immediate litigation every time a law was passed," he said.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-lawsuit-20150820-story.html?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+First+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=21445979&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8I3hNe9YI8oQo3O5Yihj_TWP6uEp06LS_SQUGLdwrAQP1qy7TzFoIvCKJss53CdtssCh9aBF7-s7NgJH-QMZISrH23ow&_hsmi=21445979
1 comment:
If the US Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act was a tax then how could it be an entitlement?
They are all just thieves and put into positions to easily steal the tax payers money. They somehow believe all tax payer monies belong to them to use as they please without any permissions or oversight.
They know what they are doing but generally no one seams to have the balls to stop and jail these criminals.
Just foxes guarding the foxes. Ken T.
Post a Comment