Turley To Testify In House Hearing On Authorization Of Congressional Lawsuit

260px-capitol_building_full_viewThis morning I will be testifying as the lead witness before the House Rules Committee on the authorization of litigation by the House of Representatives to challenge the unilateral actions of President Obama. The authorization makes it clear that the House will focus on the ACA changes. The hearing will begin at 10 am in H-313 in The Capitol building. It will be aired live on C-Span 3.

I will be the lead witness followed by Elizabeth Price Foley, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law, then Simon Lazarus, Senior Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center, and Walter Dellinger III, Partner, O’Melveny & Meyers LLP.

I would like to thank my incredible GW team for their proofing of the testimony. I have been in federal court and then federal mediation so this testimony was a crash project and, despite my getting the draft out on the day of the deadline, the team did a marvelous job late into the night. So thanks again to Claire Duggan, Michael Jones, Ann Porter, Nathan Richardson, and Conrad Risher.

248px-WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPGHere is the testimony: Testimony.Turley.HouseRulesCommittee

219 thoughts on “Turley To Testify In House Hearing On Authorization Of Congressional Lawsuit”

  1. @GaryT

    That is because those concepts can also be used as a weapon. There is nothing wrong with being an intellectual. I think I am one. But there is something wrong with squeezing out the “attitude” or “affect” of intellectualism and using that to dismiss others who lack the trappings.

    What does that Desiderata poem say. ..even the small and meek have something to say. Or was that The Wizard of Oz???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    PS : There he goes again!


  2. Mark,

    The spectrum of intellectual foils runs from the Scalia like to the Sarah Palin like.

    Dismissing Foley’s position based solely on her inconsistency and not the position itself presented in her testimony of Feb 26th and July 16th, i.e. out of nothing more than sheer ignorance, puts you squarely in the Sarah Palin category.

    That’s not only tu quoque, that’s the epitome of “holding your breath and stamping your feet.”

    “All of ’em, any of ’em that have been in front of me over all these years.” –Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008

  3. @enlightened

    my limited experience in life tells me that people who are genuinely superior do not talk about elites or judge, they are in a dynamic mode of living, wanting to improve themselves every day to be of more value to the world around them. They have absolutely no time to mock at others.

  4. @messpoo

    When you say it that way, then it makes more sense and sounds practical. But when you use “but aaahh she consorts with those ghastly Tea Partiers. Do cross her off the Cotillion list, Jeeves. I say, another mint julep sounds sooo delightful about now. Please run fetch me another one, Jemima. . .”

    See how stiff and patronizing that sounds??? How nobless obleegy??? Plus, if you do enough of that, your face will freeze that way like Rachel Maddows did with that goofy smirk thingy she has going.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  5. Mespo, you are unbelievably elite, wow, man ! you just dazzled me !

  6. Terrific opening statement Professor. You looked really sad, however, mention of Pizza really changed your mood;-)

  7. Squeeky:

    “Oh, you are degenerating into a complete elitist snob, aren ‘t you.”

    Not really. I like to think I’ve always been one in the sense that I admire excellence and expect that from folks I’m asked to believe on important issues. You know “elite” is not a dirty word. Don’t you want an elite physician examining you or an elite lawyer representing you? Or do you want a mediocre person with your life in his hands? Elitism can be a bad thing if it’s not based on real merit, and, in truth, if it’s not based on merit but on family connections or wealth or power, it’s not really elitism at all.

    This hearing was the Big Leagues and involved weighty matters of state. It deserved people who are qualified to opine as an expert and who genuinely believe their positions. It is not the province of political hacks or ideologues using intellectual tricks to promote an agenda. In its simplest terms it demands intellectual honesty. That is suspect with at least one witness. They could have picked another one but they didn’t. They chose her. You have to ask why?

    1. Squeaky:

      I still like the words egalitarian, elite, and intellectual too.

      A lot of those critical of progressive views use these words as ad hominems.

Comments are closed.