The Obama Administration previously filed its 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. The Obama Administration is seeking to block the court from hearing the merits of our Complaint and below is our filing today in defense of the right of the House of Representatives to be heard in the federal court. The case is before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The filing concerns “standing” and the right of a house of Congress to appear in a federal court. In deference to the Court, we will confine our specific responses to our filing today before Judge Collyer.
I am honored to be on this brief with a brilliant legal team from the General Counsel’s office of the United States House of Representatives, including General Counsel Kerry Kircher, Deputy General Counsel William Pittard, Senior Assistant General Counsel Todd Tatelman, Assistant Counsel Eleni Roumel, Assistant Counsel Isaac Rosenberg, and Assistant Counsel Kimberly Hamm.
We remain confident of both the standing and the merits of this historic challenge by the House of Representatives.
Jonathan Turley
Lead Counsel
Here are today’s filings: Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss (Feb. 27, 2015) (ECF No. 22)
JT has lost a lotta “friends” over this. The message is clear w/ Dems, you go against the cult leader, you are persona non grata. Now, it works both ways, Christie hugged Obama and that cost him “friends” as well, to a lesser degree. But, none are more ruthless than “progressives.” Never were a group more inaccurately names. The duopoly is intolerant of dissent.
Olly.
I don’t know what “oath” you are referring to. If an attorney is unable or unwilling to follow his client’s instructions, regardless of why that is so, the attorney must withdraw. It could be that the client wants the attorney to do something illegal or unethical. Or it could be that the attorney is sufficiently uncomfortable with doing what they have been asked by the client to do that they feel it is appropriate to withdraw, even though following the client’s instructions would not be illegal or unethical. For example, some attorneys who are comfortable representing a client in a drunk driving case would feel uncomfortable representing that person if the person is later accused of capital murder.
Thanks for approving my quote, Happy and Jettexas!
A blog with a “whites only” delete feature; yeah, I’m sure JT would have that on his site.
Wally
I don’t think so but if you feel like that they make fun of me and you can sit by me okay? 😉
“Prof. Turley’s motives may be noble, but an attorney is required to follow the instructions of his or her clients.”
However, an honorable attorney is NOT required to violate his/her oath in the process.
Karen S
The issue of standing would have to be addressed by the judge even if the issue was not raised in the motion to dismiss. That is because the issue if standing affects the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case. There is nothing unfair or improper about the motion to dismiss based on lack of standing. In fact, the opinions where the Supremes made it more difficult for a plaintiff to have standing were written by more conservative justices while Rehnquist was CJ. Justice Douglas commented once that trees should have standing, if my memory is correct. You would have liked Douglas more than you realize. In his later years he always voted against the IRS in tax cases.
Let’s not pretend that most of Prof. Turley’s clients are acting out of anything other than base political motives. They don’t care that much about the Constitution. They care about political power. While I am concerned about the Executive Branch overstepping its powers, I’m quite certain that the House Republicans will not maintain such a suit against a Republican president, just as House Democrats will never maintain such a suit against a Democratic president.
Prof. Turley’s motives may be noble, but an attorney is required to follow the instructions of his or her clients.
Thank you Professor Turley for protecting and defending our Constitution like no other!
Airdog, I agree there should be a congressional budget passed, it’s also in the Constitution. Lets see how the majority handles this, they better pass one or Boehner needs to go, as I consider him very weak. We don’t need compliance at this point, we need action. That’s what the last election was about and I don’t care if 100 people voted, they voted. Tired of the liberals and Obama stating that the last election turn out didn’t mean anything. He has more excuses not to see what the American people want. Obama still vetoes what the majority of Americans want. Republicans have the majority and I hope they act like they do because the Democrats sure shoved it down their throats. The RNC better not push for another Bush. I think Walker is a good candidate and Carson too.
Jettexas … good observation. However, there is a problem and that problem is the now annual use of Continuing Resolutions (CR’s) instead of formal Congressional Budget appropriations. 6 years running, and in a 7th with “CRomnibus”. If we cannot actually pass a formal Congressional Budget with the 12 basic appropriations for 2016, we might as well get used to this kind of financial gerrymandering. Who will act to stop it? The court is the only hope left.
What Otb on February 27, 2015 at 7:15 pm …said. Precisely the right approach.
The tragedy of our political institutions is that hardly anyone seems connected to their original purpose. We had a phrase we used in the Navy to remind our shipmates how things should be done; “not the right way, not the wrong way, but the Navy way.” In politics, the right way is your way; the wrong way is on the other side of the aisle and the Navy way follows the constitution.
I accept there will always be differences of opinion on what is right and wrong; this blog demonstrates that truth every day. But when it comes to turning that opinion into policy and law, we have to give way to the constitution. When I witness Professor Turley defend the integrity of our constitutional rule of law, I am optimistic that sense of honor can eventually find its way into the hearts and minds of those desperately clinging to their own measure of right and wrong.
Way to go JT!!!
Sure, other prez’s have used EO’s. It’s not the number of EO’s that is important, it’s the content, what the EO seeks to do. In 0’s case EO’s are the over reach of a POTUS determined to destroy & dominate the USA no matter what it takes.
0 is also using govt agencies, the EPA a prime example, as he keeps one of his few ‘promises’. In this case it’s that “under my cap and trade plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket”.
We need a LOT more Congressional action against the destruction & take over of the USA as we are being moved from a Constitutional Republic to a socialist- -fascist-communist state where big brother rules. Whatever name you want to give where we are being forcefully taken, it still means basically that we are being forced into a centrally planned central govt that seeks to eventually have TOTAL dominance over all our lives. That has been the goal of ‘progressives’ for decades.
Govt wants to claim THEY give our rights. Bad idea & very wrong. If our rights don’t come from ‘a higher than human power’ then we don’t have true rights, we have ‘privileges’ that burrocrates can rescind at their whim. Sorta like how 0, without due process, had two US citizens killed for being accused of being terrorists .
Our Founders called the higher power Nature’s God.
Lest you think I am making this all up or I’m just a conspiracy nut, read the books Strategy by Cloward and Piven & Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky.
The USA IS under attack from within. Didn’t start with 0bama, the attack has been going on at least since 1913 when Dems sneaked in the privately owned central bank mis-named The ‘Federal’ Reserve.
SamFox
SamFox
I agree with every bit of that 😉 I just don’t think it’s a Old Testament God Throwing Thunderbolts the Founders had in Mind
“happypappies
SamFox
I agree with every bit of that 😉 I just don’t think it’s a Old Testament God Throwing Thunderbolts the Founders had in mind”
Just do some research & you will find that it is the God of the Bible the Founders were referring to. I haven’t seen where the Book say God was throwing thunderbolts.
Are you referring the storm that satan threw at Job?
“John Adams
Address to the Military — 1798
Category: Religion and Morality
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Quote from Founder’s Quote Database site.
Thanks.
SamFox
This is why your lawsuit was necessary, Obama is dipping into the Treasury and into a non approved congressional account. That’s illegal and he should be arrested, he’s stealing our money to pay for his Obamacare: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-wont-explain-decision-to-make-3-billion-in-obamacare-payments/article/2560739
Best of luck, Prof. Turley. Hopefully the courts will put a stop to this imperial lawlessness before this or future presidents start bringing “deferred action” executive orders to the IRS, the EPA, and any other regulatory or executive body charged with enforcing a law with which the president disagrees.
You’re kidding. The Obama Administration doesn’t want the courts to even hear the merits of the case? They’re not playing fair?
How unusual.
Oh, wait . . .
Ross, of course it is. It is using the judicial process, to get the balance of power that is the core of our Constitution, back in order. We have a president who sees himself regal, above the law. This is a country of laws, not men. Some very basic principles @ stake here. Many countries would have violence, a coup. This is all very healthy, dealing w/ a virus that has infected our govt.
Regardless of one’s political party – it sounds like this could be a good thing longterm for Americans since it provides a process for challenging the constitutionality of presidential “executive orders”.
I stand with Sandi Hemming on this one.
“seems the regulars have no interest in this post. they prefer to melt snowballs.”
Hard to get worked up about a procedural step prior to an event.
I’m waiting for the coliseum.