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. Bob, Esq,:

    You can hold your breath and stamp your feet all you want but the simple fact is that Professor Foley is asking us to believe something that she doesn’t believe herself as evidenced by her own unequivocal writings made before her Congressional testimony. Here in Virginia we call that a Massie v. Firmstone situation and we deny a litigant the opportunity to rise above their own unequivocal, contradictory testimony. I think that’s good policy and alleviates a lot of time debunking a theory that even the proponent doesn’t believe. Her theory may have credibility but she doesn’t so why worry about her. And why are you so hell bent to defend her? She ‘s the wrong witness; JT is the right one.

    It’s the poor advocate who won’t concede what is obvious to even the casual observer.

  2. My point to make is that we have two branches which I see as not doing the job. The Legislative Branch is lame and needs some vitality that is not related to collecting money from the Koch Brothers. The Executive Branch has to do more in the way of Executive actions and have more dialogue with Congress. The Judicial Branch is failing us in the cases involving corporate influence.

    We the people all need to expose our Congressmen and women for not doing the job in DC and give em Hell Harry when they come home to collect money or go off on lobbyist paid trips.

  3. Gary, I gave your question some thought. Senator Jay Bulworth in the movie, Bulworth, would have his bodyguards stand down. I think Warren Beatty made one of the best, and bravest political movies ever, in Bulworth. It was too true, taking to task political correctness ,duopoly and money. So, it was panned by the media and politicians alike for that reason. But, the suicidal Jay Bulworth would have told his bodyguards to stand down.

  4. GaryT, Lol. You have been showing some great humor of late. Keep it up. We all need humor in our lives.

  5. There was a cross rip there, professor. I would not have written my last comment if I saw yours prior to doing so. Hopefully you know that to be the case. Yours and my comments were timed almost simultaneously. Sorry for the bother.

    1. I am sorry that I have been away on other projects. I can see this thread turning personal so I ask that everyone return to the subject and not the personal stuff and recriminations. There is absolutely zero value in a tit-for-tat personal exchange for the rest of the commentators. I am not going to delete anything but I ask that we return to the subject of the posting or move on to one of the other topics.

      1. Nick,

        I have deleted a comment of yours in violation of our civility rule. I did not delete either side of the recent exchange but asked both sides to refrain from the personal jabs. I ask again that both sides leave this thread to the subject matter and not personal exchanges and observations.

  6. @messpoo

    Oh, you are degenerating into a complete elitist snob, aren ‘t you. Dismissing Foley because she supports the Tea Party. OK, so their three corner hats are hokey, and frankly I get tired of America the Beatiful and would prefer Broken by KHZ.

    But you have to get past appearance and “affect” sometimes. I would trust a Sarah Palin to br president before I would Lizzy Warren, because Sarah wouldn ‘t fall for a bunch of BS. That being said, it would be aural torture to listen to her give a SOTU speech.

    Now, behave yourself!!!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  7. Mark: “I dismiss her argument based on what she wrote on July 15, 2013, Jan. 15, 2004 and Feb. 7, 2014. Her attachment to the Federalist Society and her “intellectual defense of the Tea Party”

    Translation: You’ve dismissed Foley’s position based on her inconsistency and NOT the position she presented in her written and spoken testimony on Feb 26 and July 16th.

    Tu quoque

    QED

  8. Bob, Esq:

    “So Mark, you’ve dismissed Foley’s position based on her inconsistency and NOT the position she presented in her written and spoken testimony on Feb 26 and July 16th.”

    ********************

    Nope, I dismiss her argument based on what she wrote on July 15, 2013, Jan. 15, 2004 and Feb. 7, 2014. Her attachment to the Federalist Society and her “intellectual defense of the Tea Party” (an oxymoronic phrase if I ever heard one) are just icing on top (and corroborative) of my assessment.

  9. Mark,

    Your method of appellate argumentation is quite unique.

    Do you coach Sarah Palin in your spare time?

  10. From Professor Foley’s website:

    ” No one has captured the energy and essence of this vital movement better than Elizabeth Price Foley. She combines scholarship and lucid writing with a profound respect – embraced by the Tea Party – for the U.S. Constitution as it was originally crafted to secure individual liberty and restrain government power. While I might quarrel with Prof. Foley’s enthusiasm for America’s muscular global role, her intellectual defense of the Tea Party and her application of its credo to urgent and controversial issues have produced a powerful, provocative, and timely book, which I highly recommend.”
    – Robert A. Levy, Chairman, Cato Institute

    Ah, I have enough information to judge the credibility of our professor from Florida International School of Law.

  11. Mespo, Elaine likes to play victim and had a long tenure of having hacks come to her defense when anyone challenged her. They ALL would preface their bombastic defense w/ the perfunctory, “Elaine doesn’t need me to defend her.” I ALWAYS said she indeed did not. I treat her just like I do men. That’s the way I roll. And, Elaine does better than most men here in that regard. The allegedly progressive men didn’t really think she was capable and that was evidenced by their quick paternalism when Elaine was challenged. I NEVER saw Elaine tell her bodyguards to stand down. She obviously got something out of it. You evaluate people by what they do, and what they don’t do. Finally, Elaine does hold grudges. That is evidenced by her bringing up something for the first time about what I said days ago. That was festering and came out w/ a gentle prodding. I work people for a living mespo. So do you.

  12. So Mark, you’ve dismissed Foley’s position based on her inconsistency and NOT the position she presented in her written and spoken testimony on Feb 26 and July 16th.

    Can you say … Tu quoque?

  13. BTW Bob, “screed” is the exact right word for Foley’s almost breathless attack on so-called “death panels.” You can get the tone in the first paragraph. JT’s testimony and writing was not overly emotional or angry. That’s the difference.

  14. Not really, Bob, Esq. We’re talking credibility here. She’s made the case against her own argument in her previous writings. How could I do any better?

Comments are closed.