The Republican Lawsuit Against Obamacare Gets a New ‘Liberal’ Attorney
And now, he’s Speaker John Boehner’s new lawyer in the House Republicans’ lawsuit against President Obama and the Affordable Care Act. In fact, he’s not just any lawyer in the case, he’s now the lead counsel.
Why? We’ll let him answer:
As many on this blog know, I support national health care and voted for President Obama in his first presidential campaign. However, as I have often stressed before Congress, in the Madisonian system it is as important how you do something as what you do. And, the Executive is barred from usurping the Legislative Branch’s Article I powers, no matter how politically attractive or expedient it is to do so. Unilateral, unchecked Executive action is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in our constitutional system. This case represents a long-overdue effort by Congress to resolve fundamental Separation of Powers issues.
It’s difficult to believe that not only the House Republicans but also a constitutional law professor would be so utterly clueless about the role of the Executive Branch and its bureaucracy in implementing congressionally-sanctioned laws, but there it is. This is precisely what Health and Human Services has been doing with regards to the Affordable Care Act. Implementing it. Suddenly this is unconstitutional.
Take, for example, the so-called “exemption from Obamacare”… CONTINUE READING
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Bob Cesca
Bob Cesca is the managing editor at The Daily Banter (www.thedailybanter.com) and a Huffington Post contributor since 2005. He's worked in journalism since 1988 as a print writer/editor, a radio news anchor, a digital media columnist/editor, a book author and blogger. He's the co-host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Thursday regular on the syndicated Stephanie Miller Show. He's appeared on numerous other radio shows including the John Phillips Show and Geraldo Rivera Show in Los Angeles. Bob has been a commentator/analyst on the BBC (TV and radio), MSNBC, Current TV, CNN and Sky News. Following him on Twitter: @bobcesca_go
52 responses to The Republican Lawsuit Against Obamacare Gets a New ‘Liberal’ Attorney
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
OldLefty November 19th, 2014 at 08:04
Jonathan Turley is not a liberal, he is a libertrian.
He basically turned against Obama when he failed to prosecute Bush for war crimes.
red-diaper-baby 1942 November 19th, 2014 at 08:45
Well, as one old lefty to another: that bothered me too, as did his failure to shut down Guantanamo. Yes, I know he needed to keep his political capital in his first term for the ACA, but that would have had enormous symbolical value — and symbols can sometimes matter a great deal.
On the whole, however, I think he’s done a good job considering the grotesque and self-serving opposition he’s had to face every step of the way. I’m particularly happy about the recent climate deal with China. He’s been a good President; but with a more rational Congress he could have been a great one.
OldLefty November 19th, 2014 at 08:57
I agree.
What do you do with a Congress who made it clear that was willing to sink the nation if they could hurt the president.
I think that William Kristol’s dad, Irving said it best;
“And what if the traditionalist conservatives are right and a
Kemp-Roth tax cut, without corresponding cuts in expenditures, also leaves us
with a fiscal problem? The neo-conservative is willing to leave those problems
to be coped with by liberal interregnums. He wants to shape the future, and
will leave it up to his opponents to tidy up afterwards”.
Irving Kristol ; In
“The Battle for Reagan’s Soul,” published in the Wall Street Journal
on May 16, 1980
Keeping in mind the definition of interregnum;
1:the time during which a throne is vacant between two successive reigns or regimes
2: a period during which the normal functions of government or control are suspended
3: a lapse or pause in a continuous series
Kick Frenzy November 19th, 2014 at 15:23
To be fair, he didn’t close Guantanamo because Congress wouldn’t let him.
Everybody said, “Not in MY back yard!” when it came to figuring out where the prisoners would go.
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 19:15
Never promise what you can’t deliver. He had both houses for 2 years.
Kick Frenzy November 20th, 2014 at 00:01
It wasn’t two years.
It was four months and a week and only 72 days legislatively.
They also never held a filibuster-proof majority, nor a gargantuan lead in the House.
He didn’t fail to deliver, Republicans succeeded in obstructionism… just as it was planned on the night of the 2009 inauguration.
Spirit of America November 20th, 2014 at 03:28
Reid became majority leader in 2007 to present.
Pelosi became speaker in 2007, to 2011.
Pres took over in 2009.
“They also never held a filibuster-proof majority, nor a gargantuan lead in the House.”
Agreed
Tommy6860 November 19th, 2014 at 17:55
He’s been a good President; but with a more rational Congress he could have been a great one.
I think Obama is a great president in spite of congress.
OldLefty November 19th, 2014 at 09:04
Jonathan Turley is not a liberal, he is a libertrian.
He basically turned against Obama when he failed to prosecute Bush for war crimes.
red-diaper-baby 1942 November 19th, 2014 at 09:45
Well, as one old lefty to another: that bothered me too, as did his failure to shut down Guantanamo. Yes, I know he needed to keep his political capital in his first term for the ACA, but that would have had enormous symbolical value — and symbols can sometimes matter a great deal.
On the whole, however, I think he’s done a good job considering the grotesque and self-serving opposition he’s had to face every step of the way. I’m particularly happy about the recent climate deal with China. He’s been a good President; but with a more rational Congress he could have been a great one.
OldLefty November 19th, 2014 at 09:57
I agree.
What do you do with a Congress who made it clear that was willing to sink the nation if they could hurt the president.
I think that William Kristol’s dad, Irving said it best;
“And what if the traditionalist conservatives are right and a
Kemp-Roth tax cut, without corresponding cuts in expenditures, also leaves us
with a fiscal problem? The neo-conservative is willing to leave those problems
to be coped with by liberal interregnums. He wants to shape the future, and
will leave it up to his opponents to tidy up afterwards”.
Irving Kristol ; In
“The Battle for Reagan’s Soul,” published in the Wall Street Journal
on May 16, 1980
Keeping in mind the definition of interregnum;
1:the time during which a throne is vacant between two successive reigns or regimes
2: a period during which the normal functions of government or control are suspended
3: a lapse or pause in a continuous series
Kick Frenzy November 19th, 2014 at 16:23
To be fair, he didn’t close Guantanamo because Congress wouldn’t let him.
Everybody said, “Not in MY back yard!” when it came to figuring out where the prisoners would go.
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 20:15
Never promise what you can’t deliver. He had both houses for 2 years.
Kick Frenzy November 20th, 2014 at 01:01
It wasn’t two years.
It was four months and a week and only 72 days legislatively.
They also never held a filibuster-proof majority, nor a gargantuan lead in the House.
He didn’t fail to deliver, Republicans succeeded in obstructionism… just as it was planned on the night of the 2009 inauguration.
Spirit of America November 20th, 2014 at 04:28
Reid became majority leader in 2007 to present.
Pelosi became speaker in 2007, to 2011.
Pres took over in 2009.
“They also never held a filibuster-proof majority, nor a gargantuan lead in the House.”
Agreed
Tommy6860 November 19th, 2014 at 18:55
He’s been a good President; but with a more rational Congress he could have been a great one.
I think Obama is a great president in spite of congress.
Tommy6860 November 19th, 2014 at 08:28
So, does he call congress as a witness for passing the ACA legislation that Obama signed into law? This is beyond surreal.
Tommy6860 November 19th, 2014 at 09:28
So, does he call congress as a witness for passing the ACA legislation that Obama signed into law? This is beyond surreal.
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 09:20
“It’s difficult to believe that not only the House Republicans but also a
constitutional law professor would be so utterly clueless…”
That’s rich, just too rich and arrogant. Because he doesn’t hold the same view on something(in his area of expertise not yours btw), now one of the country’s very respected constitutional scholars is called clueless by a ‘journalist’…
Many lawyers across the political spectrum have gone on record saying that delaying the mandate dates was changing a law since wording in the aca says ‘must be enacted by…”
And he’s for aca. He’s concerned about unbalancing the 3 branches powers and has been writing papers to that effect going back 20+ years. Now POTUS himself has stated ‘his job is to execute laws that are passed’ and can’t just ‘change a law’.
The question isn’t about aca per se, it’s about separation of powers. I would think any serious, even if self-described, journalist would care about the mechanisms of law in this country.
arc99 November 19th, 2014 at 10:50
So why was there not a peep about separation of powers during the Bush administration?
This stinks to high heaven. When President Bush did this, nobody said a friggin word. I am fed up with the double standards being imposed on this President whether from a right wing Congress or an allegedly “liberal” lawyer.
Hey Professor Turley, either add President Bush as a defendant or I respectfully request that you STFU.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2006/05/09/13837_penalties-waived-for-low-income.html?rh=1
Penalties waived for low-income seniors who miss Medicare signup
BY TONY PUGH
Knight Ridder NewspapersMay 9, 2006
WASHINGTON—With pressure mounting to extend next Monday’s enrollment deadline for the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, the Bush administration took another small step in that direction Tuesday, waiving penalty fees for very low-income seniors and people with disabilities who sign up late.
Wayout November 19th, 2014 at 15:02
Well gee, why didn’t anyone bring this up and seek a remedy against Bush? Illegal actions by ANY president should be dealt with in the proper manner.
arc99 November 19th, 2014 at 18:33
The far more relevant question is why do partisan hypocrites propagate the lie that President Obama exercising his lawful authority in the same manner as his predecessors is lawless?
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 19:17
The same question goes as to why no dems raised heck when reid broke the senate rules… no side ‘narcs’ or complains about its own side, that’s the other sides job. Both sides want to get away w/what ever they can.
OldLefty November 20th, 2014 at 07:58
Well gee, why didn’t anyone bring this up and seek a remedy against Bush? Illegal actions by ANY president should be dealt with in the proper manner.
_________
1) What makes you think they are illegal?
2) We already know that any actions that MAY have been illegal under Bush, were ignored by the Republican Congress, while the Democratic Congress rightly (not necessarily rightfully) decided that the American people just wanted to move on and that prosecution or impeachment would be viewed as petty trivial theatrics in a time of crisis when the Democrats were poised to make big gains.
3) We already know,
So said Ben Bradlee, executive editor of The Washington Post, explained that when Ronald Reagan came to Washington in 1980, journalists at the Post sensed that “here comes a really true conservative…. And we are known-though I don’t think justifiably-as the great liberals. So, [we thought] we’ve got to really behave ourselves here. We’ve got to not be arrogant, make every effort to be informed, be mannerly, be fair. And we did this. I suspect in the process that this paper and probably a good deal of the press gave Reagan not a free ride, but they didn’t use the same standards on him that they used on Carter and on Nixon.”, and why they gave Reagan a pass on Iran-Contra, afraid of what people might think of taking down a second Republican president.
Michael Deaver, the first-term deputy chief of staff and a virtual surrogate son to the Reagans. Deaver wrote in his memoirs that up until the Iran-contra scandal broke, “Ronald Reagan enjoyed the most generous treatment by the press of any President in the postwar era. He knew it, and liked the distinction.”
raincheck December 18th, 2014 at 07:43
“Illegal actions by ANY president should be dealt with in the proper manner”
You are absolutely right about that… especially if it has to do with “War Crimes” Bush/Cheney need to be put in prison!!
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 16:37
“So why was there not a peep about separation of powers during the Bush administration?”
I’m discussing this, the here and now. And as I made a comment about precedent before, if the precedent was wrong, to continue it is wrong.
Why anyone would use prior bad behavior to defend bad behavior is beyond me(that’s if it is determined to be, it is still not settled). We live right now. Right now is the question.
(but I will look at the bush item just for the fun of it, will post here when I find info)
arc99 November 19th, 2014 at 18:30
I presented the Bush policy as an example of the President and his administration using lawfully authorized discretion which is exactly what I think President Obama is doing. I am not saying the actions of the Bush administration constituted bad behavior
That is my point. There was no lying hysterical BS about lawlessness. Whether one supported Medicare D or not, there was no dispute that the executive branch has latitude in policy implementation. These kinds of adjustments in policy implementation happen all the time and are not illegal.
The only “bad behavior” is coming from the disingenuous hypocrisy of the Obama-haters
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 19:13
“that the executive branch has latitude in policy implementation”
But not when it changes the law.
Example:
If a law reads:
All people must have shoes or face a fine of $100.00 per day. And they should have them by Jan 1st.
Now, should a problem arise(say not enough shoes), a pres can move that date since the law says ‘should’, not must.
But if the law reads:
All people must have shoes or face a fine of $100 per day. And they must have them by Jan 1st.
Even if there is a problem(again, not enough shoes), the pres can not move the date, he must get congress to amend the law to change the date. And that action has been done because of how a law read.
That’s the difference being argued by Turley and others.
tracey marie November 19th, 2014 at 14:54
the same was done with Prescription part D as well as the 6 month delay because the site did not work and the billions more in cost…not one lawsuit, wailing, and disrespectful behavior was seen. Hypocrisy, they name is goptp
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 16:51
That is why we have the ‘loyal opposition’… it is their job to make sure the other side doesn’t go over the boundaries.
If what bush did changed the law w/out it being in the law he has discretion on certain parts, my question is why they didn’t press it?
tracey marie November 19th, 2014 at 16:56
white president
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 18:07
So all democrats are racists? I don’t believe that.
One of 2 things in my mind is it:
1. what he did was w/in the law, hence no pushing it.
2. what he did was illegal, but via backroom dealing and not wanting to look ‘harsh’ to seniors, the dems got something down the road for letting bush do his illegal thing.
I don’t know which yet, but am looking into it.
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 10:20
“It’s difficult to believe that not only the House Republicans but also a
constitutional law professor would be so utterly clueless…”
That’s rich, just too rich and arrogant. Because he doesn’t hold the same view on something(in his area of expertise not yours btw), now one of the country’s very respected constitutional scholars is called clueless by a ‘journalist’…
Many lawyers across the political spectrum have gone on record saying that delaying the mandate dates was changing a law since wording in the aca says ‘must be enacted by…”
And he’s for aca. He’s concerned about unbalancing the 3 branches powers and has been writing papers to that effect going back 20+ years. Now POTUS himself has stated ‘his job is to execute laws that are passed’ and can’t just ‘change a law’.
The question isn’t about aca per se, it’s about separation of powers. I would think any serious, even if self-described, journalist would care about the mechanisms of law in this country.
arc99 November 19th, 2014 at 11:50
So why was there not a peep about separation of powers during the Bush administration?
This stinks to high heaven. When President Bush did this, nobody said a friggin word. I am fed up with the double standards being imposed on this President whether from a right wing Congress or an allegedly “liberal” lawyer.
Hey Professor Turley, either add President Bush as a defendant or I respectfully request that you STFU.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2006/05/09/13837_penalties-waived-for-low-income.html?rh=1
Penalties waived for low-income seniors who miss Medicare signup
BY TONY PUGH
Knight Ridder NewspapersMay 9, 2006
WASHINGTON—With pressure mounting to extend next Monday’s enrollment deadline for the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, the Bush administration took another small step in that direction Tuesday, waiving penalty fees for very low-income seniors and people with disabilities who sign up late.
Wayout November 19th, 2014 at 16:02
Well gee, why didn’t anyone bring this up and seek a remedy against Bush? Illegal actions by ANY president should be dealt with in the proper manner.
arc99 November 19th, 2014 at 19:33
The far more relevant question is why do partisan hypocrites propagate the lie that President Obama exercising his lawful authority in the same manner as his predecessors is lawless?
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 20:17
The same question goes as to why no dems raised heck when reid broke the senate rules… no side ‘narcs’ or complains about its own side, that’s the other sides job. Both sides want to get away w/what ever they can.
OldLefty November 20th, 2014 at 08:58
Well gee, why didn’t anyone bring this up and seek a remedy against Bush? Illegal actions by ANY president should be dealt with in the proper manner.
_________
1) What makes you think they are illegal?
2) We already know that any actions that MAY have been illegal under Bush, were ignored by the Republican Congress, while the Democratic Congress rightly (not necessarily rightfully) decided that the American people just wanted to move on and that prosecution or impeachment would be viewed as petty trivial theatrics in a time of crisis when the Democrats were poised to make big gains.
3) We already know,
So said Ben Bradlee, executive editor of The Washington Post, explained that when Ronald Reagan came to Washington in 1980, journalists at the Post sensed that “here comes a really true conservative…. And we are known-though I don’t think justifiably-as the great liberals. So, [we thought] we’ve got to really behave ourselves here. We’ve got to not be arrogant, make every effort to be informed, be mannerly, be fair. And we did this. I suspect in the process that this paper and probably a good deal of the press gave Reagan not a free ride, but they didn’t use the same standards on him that they used on Carter and on Nixon.”, and why they gave Reagan a pass on Iran-Contra, afraid of what people might think of taking down a second Republican president.
Michael Deaver, the first-term deputy chief of staff and a virtual surrogate son to the Reagans. Deaver wrote in his memoirs that up until the Iran-contra scandal broke, “Ronald Reagan enjoyed the most generous treatment by the press of any President in the postwar era. He knew it, and liked the distinction.”
raincheck December 18th, 2014 at 08:43
“Illegal actions by ANY president should be dealt with in the proper manner”
You are absolutely right about that… especially if it has to do with “War Crimes” Bush/Cheney need to be put in prison!!
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 17:37
“So why was there not a peep about separation of powers during the Bush administration?”
I’m discussing this, the here and now. And as I made a comment about precedent before, if the precedent was wrong, to continue it is wrong.
Why anyone would use prior bad behavior to defend bad behavior is beyond me(that’s if it is determined to be, it is still not settled). We live right now. Right now is the question.
(but I will look at the bush item just for the fun of it, will post here when I find info)
arc99 November 19th, 2014 at 19:30
I presented the Bush policy as an example of the President and his administration using lawfully authorized discretion which is exactly what I think President Obama is doing. I am not saying the actions of the Bush administration constituted bad behavior
That is my point. There was no lying hysterical BS about lawlessness. Whether one supported Medicare D or not, there was no dispute that the executive branch has latitude in policy implementation. These kinds of adjustments in policy implementation happen all the time and are not illegal.
The only “bad behavior” is coming from the disingenuous hypocrisy of the Obama-haters
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 20:13
“that the executive branch has latitude in policy implementation”
But not when it changes the law.
Example:
If a law reads:
All people must have shoes or face a fine of $100.00 per day. And they should have them by Jan 1st.
Now, should a problem arise(say not enough shoes), a pres can move that date since the law says ‘should’, not must.
But if the law reads:
All people must have shoes or face a fine of $100 per day. And they must have them by Jan 1st.
Even if there is a problem(again, not enough shoes), the pres can not move the date, he must get congress to amend the law to change the date. And that action has been done because of how a law read.
That’s the difference being argued by Turley and others.
tracey marie November 19th, 2014 at 15:54
the same was done with Prescription part D as well as the 6 month delay because the site did not work and the billions more in cost…not one lawsuit, wailing, and disrespectful behavior was seen. Hypocrisy, they name is goptp
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 17:51
That is why we have the ‘loyal opposition’… it is their job to make sure the other side doesn’t go over the boundaries.
If what bush did changed the law w/out it being in the law he has discretion on certain parts, my question is why they didn’t press it?
tracey marie November 19th, 2014 at 17:56
white president
Spirit of America November 19th, 2014 at 19:07
So all democrats are racists? I don’t believe that.
One of 2 things in my mind is it:
1. what he did was w/in the law, hence no pushing it.
2. what he did was illegal, but via backroom dealing and not wanting to look ‘harsh’ to seniors, the dems got something down the road for letting bush do his illegal thing.
I don’t know which yet, but am looking into it.
FDRliberal November 19th, 2014 at 17:13
Perfect use of ‘scare quotes’ for the libertarian Turley, who testified in favor of impeaching Bill Clinton.
FDRliberal November 19th, 2014 at 18:13
Perfect use of ‘scare quotes’ for the libertarian Turley, who has testified in favor of impeaching Bill Clinton.
OldLefty November 19th, 2014 at 19:27
I must say again, ‘We are very unserious people in very serious times’.
OldLefty November 19th, 2014 at 20:27
I must say again, ‘We are very unserious people in very serious times’.
Foundryman November 19th, 2014 at 20:18
So, with a ‘liberal’ attorney they now have a scapegoat to blame when they fail again….
Foundryman November 19th, 2014 at 21:18
So, with a ‘liberal’ attorney they now have a scapegoat to blame when they fail again….