Obama Administration Files Motion To Dismiss House Challenge

Congressional SealSeal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.svgThe Obama Administration has filed its expected Motion to Dismiss in the challenge by the United States House of Representatives v. Burwell. As many of you know, I am lead counsel in the action. We posted our complaint earlier and I have posted the motion of the Administration below.


The effort by the Administration to seek the dismissal of the action was anticipated and we will be filing an opposition memorandum clearly laying out the right of the House of Representatives to be heard in federal court. We do not believe that the Administration will be successful in its effort to avoid consideration of the merits of this constitutional challenge. However, in deference to the Court, we will confine our specific response to our filing before Judge Collyer.

Jonathan Turley
Lead Counsel
United States House of Representative v. Burwell

Proposed Order

Memorandum

28 thoughts on “Obama Administration Files Motion To Dismiss House Challenge”

  1. Here is my comment back on November 24 or so on the Standing To Sue issue, and I comment on the squabbles on the blog here:

    BarkinDog

    The debate in the courts will come quickly to the issue of standing to sue. The Congress is one branch. It is made up of two legs: House and Senate. Both the House and Senate consist of elected members who come from two opposite parties. The House passed a resolution to file this lawsuit. Only Republicans voted for it. The Senate did not pass a resolution. So the Complaint filed in federal court stands on one leg (House) in which half the toes are missing. A guy like Bernie Sanders might move to intervene as a member of the Senate and oppose the remedy sought and the theory promulgated in the Complaint. The Executive Branch defendants can raise this issue and should.

    Now, since I first raised this issue many comments back there has been a lot of ranting on the comments. In a prior life as a human I lived near Saint John and James Elementary School in Ferguson, MO. The kids from that school sang a song which is appropriate to the rants here:

    (music to Glory Glory Halluluhya)

    Glory Glory Halaluya!
    Sister hit me with a ruler!
    I beaned her in the bean…
    With a rotten tangerine!
    And school kept marching On!


    Now I don’t know how to spull hallaluya and don’t know nuthin bout birthin babies and I hate to inject nuns into the discussion here. But Jeso the quibbling is not getting us to a good discussion of the topic.

    Oh, and 8th Day Dog Adventists are against socialized medical care and that includes Supreme Court justices who get free medical care for life and Congressmen and women. Eat right and cut more artFays and you will stay healthier.

  2. People who say JT is being “played” are saying Boehner is smarter than JT. That is insane. I know JT is smarter than me, and I know he is more than just book smart. Integrity is becoming extinct. JT has it in spades.

  3. I am a dog. But I get to vote early and often. I accompany my half blind guy to the polls and pull the lever. Then I accompany the bus of other blind guys into the booth and pull the lever. I do as I am told. Usually it is straight ticket, one way or the other. But, sometimes I give extra guidance to my humanoids and pull the correct lever. In 2008 I voted early and often for Obama. But the last time around I hesitated and just voted how the blind guys wanted me to. It was about half and half so the whole busload wasted their time and mine. If Hillary runs she will have my vote. Early and often.

    As for standing to sue: I don’t believe that a branch of government can be a party to a lawsuit one against the other. Maybe the Executive because the Commander in Chief is one guy or gal. But unless all 200 feet of the Senate are in favor then there is no standing. That is two feet per Senator. Then you would have to have all the feet of the House members on board. If they vote say 60 percent in favor of the lawsuit then the court could perhaps grant them 60 percent of what they seek in the way of declaratory and injunctive relief. The House and the Senate are really like a big dogpac of barking dogs. And dogs have a superior aspect. Four legs good, two legs baaaaad! (Animal Farm)
    Or was it Animal House????

  4. Did anybody listen to Obama’s choice for AG? Said respected Constitution, then said three (one was everybody has a right to a job, even if illegal) things Obama has done are OK. Pete Sessions wasn’t happy with her. She’s Holder in his halloween costume!

  5. happyappies

    Thanks for the non political response. I realize that Obama and previous Presidents have pushed the limits of their executive power. Jefferson and the Supreme Court, specifically Chief Justice Marshall, were often at odds over where executive power ended and the reach of the Supreme Court penetrated. The two ingredients that seem to reappear are the letter of the law, which is not always clear, or is often open to interpretation, and the effects of the actions deemed legal or not so legal, Constitutional or not so Constitutional.

    This is one of an ongoing and never-ending moments of collision. It will be interesting to see what the court does and what the response to that will be. If the court finds in favor of Obama, the Republican outcry will be loud but given that the court leans to the right if it leans at all, they will have to be careful with their next attacks. If the court finds against Obama, the Republicans will have a heyday temporarily until the other perspectives are factored in, those of the people who will lose their coverage, if it comes to that. Present polls show almost 65% in favor of fixing the ACA, not repealing it. The reality of the situation is that thus far the ACA has resulted in more good than bad. If you see only the negative results then it is all bad.

    Unfortunately the next move, which would be to fine tune the ACA will only happen if Clinton gets in, if at all. This is a tremendous opportunity for the Republican party to revamp the existing ACA with intelligent and problem specific approaches. It is unfortunate that all that is in their sights is destroying Obama any way they can. Regardless of Turley’s objectivity and reverence for the law, he is simply being used as a weapon of destruction and not an instrument to better the situation.

    1. Issac – everyone in Washington “uses” each other but I think that Professor Turley has his eyes on the greater good here which is the Constitution which is what is holding the country together.

      I am like everyone else here and I get emotional and mad at times. But I used to be extremely Liberal. So I know where you are coming from even though I don’t always agree with you, I respect your right to have your opinion.

Comments are closed.