As many on this blog are aware, I have previously testified, written, and litigated in opposition to the rise of executive power and the countervailing decline in congressional power in our tripartite system. I have also spent years encouraging Congress, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, to more actively defend its authority, including seeking judicial review in separation of powers conflicts. For that reason, it may come as little surprise this morning that I have agreed to represent the United States House of Representatives in its challenge of unilateral, unconstitutional actions taken by the Obama Administration with respect to implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is an honor to represent the institution in this historic lawsuit and to work with the talented staff of the House General Counsel’s Office. As in the past, this posting is meant to be transparent about my representation as well as my need to be circumspect about my comments in the future on related stories. Continue reading “TURLEY AGREES TO SERVE AS LEAD COUNSEL FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE”
Category: Congress
By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor
“What you going to do when the rain comes?
Are you going to sail on the rising seas like Noah?
What you going to feed your little orphans
When there’s no more fish in the sea forever?”
–Brendan Perry, “The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea,” from Ark (Cooking Vinyl, 2010)
In April of this year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued the first part of its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change. Among its conclusions is that “atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years.” The report also states that it is “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” In order to limit the increase in global temperature to two degrees Celsius, the panel estimates that it will be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40 to 70 percent below 2010 levels by 2050 and to virtually nothing by the end of the century.
The political response was predictable. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee held a short hearing, promptly declaring that the science is not “settled” and accused Democrats of “trying to scare America.” Republican reaction to this week’s announcement of a climate agreement with China was even harsher, with Sen. Mitch McConnell complaining that “these carbon emission regulations are creating havoc in my state and other states across the country.”
Although there are serious scientists who dispute the IPCC findings, the cumulative scientific evidence that anthropogenic activities significantly impact climate change is overwhelming. So why are the IPCC’s findings so controversial? The answer is that the politics of climate science denial are largely shaped by two forces: the contrived skepticism of the energy industry and the religious skepticism of the evangelical right.
Continue reading “The Theological Dimensions of Climate Science Denial”
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Congress is drafting legislation to deny Social Security benefits to those accused of participating in persecutions of others by the Nazis. HR 5706 directs the Justice Department to provide names of individuals suspected as such to the Social Security Administration which would then terminate all social benefits to these individuals. This could occur despite payments by these individuals into the social security system and who are presently receiving such benefits.
The Bill, titled the “Nazi Social Security Benefits Termination Act of 2014,” came into being after the Associated Press reported that millions of dollars in benefits have been provided to those beneficiaries, many of whom the AP claims received the promise of social benefits on the condition they removed themselves from the United States. The Justice Department disputes this claim.
While there is no question that those who participated in genocides should be held accountable for their actions, the steps Congress is taking has substantial long term risks to due process rights, entitlements, and using retirement benefits as a form of collective punishment to individuals deemed undesirable by the U.S. Government.
It appears that friends (albeit a dwindling number) of MIT professor Jonathan Gruber may soon have to put his face on milk cartons to locate the economist. After a series of frank but embarrassing statements on the strategies behind the Administration’s passage of the Affordable Car Act (ACA), Gruber has moved from the status of “disfavored” to “disavowed” to “disappeared.” This week, Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi expressed a complete lack of knowledge of who Gruber is, was, or will be — even though she previously cited his work and he was paid $400,000 as one of the architects of Obamacare and has made over $2 million from HHS. Such roles are often difficult for scholars in moving between the political and academic worlds, but it is rare to find an academic become such an issue in a national debate.
Continue reading “The Purging of Professor Gruber: ACA Architect Disavowed In The Beltway”
This week we discussed another videotape of Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who played a major role the ACA, or “Obamacare,” making revealing and highly embarrassing statements about the strategy behind the passage of the Act. Gruber had already previously attracted controversy with statements where he endorsed the theory at the heart of the recent decisions in Halbig and King by challengers to the ACA: to wit, that the federal funding provision was a quid pro quo device to reward states with their own exchanges and to punish those that force the creation of federal exchanges. That issue will now be decided by the United States Supreme Court. Gruber caused uproar when, after he had denounced the theory as “nutty” during the arguments in Halbig and King, he was shown later to have embraced that same interpretation. Gruber has become a major liability in the litigation. Gruber then was back in the news with an equally startling admission that the Obama Administration (and Gruber) succeeded in passing the ACA only by engineering a “lack of transparency” on the details and relying on “the stupidity of the American voter.” Now a new videotape has surfaced from Gruber speaking at the University of Rhode Island in 2012 and expressing the same contempt for the intelligence of citizens — suggesting again that they were hoodwinked to “the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.” Gruber was paid roughly $400,000 to help design the ACA by the Obama Administration, but he is proving far far more costly in its aftermath.
The Supreme Court has decided to wade back into the controversy over the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or “Obamacare” today with the granting of review of King v. Burwell, No. 14-114. I have previously written about the King case as well as the parallel case in the D.C. Circuit in Halbig.
Continue reading “SUPREME COURT ACCEPTS OBAMACARE CHALLENGE”
The Justice Department has previously been held in contempt by Congress and hit with increasingly tough court orders from a federal judge over its obstruction of efforts to secure evidence in the notorious Fast and Furious operation. Many have accused Attorney General Eric Holder of acting blatantly political in withholding documents to protect Democrats from backlash before the elections. As if to prove that view, the Justice Department waited until late on election eve to finally dump more than 64,000 pages of documents congressional lawmakers have been seeking for years. The timing was almost taunting in its impact. Guaranteeing that the content could not be viewed before people voted, the Obama Administration’s long obstruction resulted in this troubling image of a politically timed release. The Administration previously admitted that it would not discuss its plans for unilateral immigration action until after voters had gone home from the polls.
By Mark Esposito, Weekend Blogger
In the red corner, wearing angelic white trunks trimmed in gold that darling of the Right, that Gipper of trickle-down economics, the Great Communicator himself, Ron–ald “The California Killer” Rea–gan.
And in the blue corner with black trunks trimmed in red, the “change” President, the foil of all things conservative, the first of firsts in American History, Bar–ack “Betcha Can’t Believe Where I’m From” O–Bam–a.
And today’s contest is a three-round fight for the World Super Heavyweight Economics Guru Belt. The format is a 10 point “must” system and you are the judges. I, your humble ring announcer, get a scorecard but it’s only advisory.
But first some background, both fighters weigh in after tangling with some decidedly tough contenders before this big bout. Reagan came into office with a much more serious recession than most on the Left give him credit for. In addition, he followed hot on the heels of what his predecessor called the great American “malaise.” Plus he had an adversarial relationship with the nation’s biggest rival, the Soviet Union.
Obama came into office with a war on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, a massive recession, and a world-wide financial industry on the brink of collapse. Pretty tough contenders. Plus, he had and has a Congressional opposition party whose expressed goal was to make sure nothing he proposed made it into law. And law, as you know, is the political boxer’s stock-in-trade.
Ding— ding — ding.
Continue reading “Best Out Of Three Rounds: Obama vs. Reagan On The Economy”
There appears to be a race by politicians to show who is more serious about Ebola by imposing greater and greater restrictions on anyone suspected of being a carrier. It now appears that we may have our first court challenge to these limitations and there are viable claims to be made. The American Civil Liberties Union is acting on behalf of a nurse, Kaci Hickox, who has been under quarantine after she arrived at Newark International Airport. I will be discussing the case on CNN this afternoon with Wolf Blitzer.
Continue reading “Nurse Reportedly Moving Toward Lawsuit Over Ebola Quarantine Rules”
By Mark Esposito, Weekend Blogger
I have been reading about the latest Breitbart-inspired dire prediction of the nefarious ( and possibly illegal) machinations of the Obama Administration. You know “Green Paper-Gate.” It’s the one where the conservative blog, Breitbart, reports that a draft solicitation proposal for purchase of green paper issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services definitely means that the Obama Administration is secretly planning a massive amnesty campaign of undocumented aliens. And, worse still, that it’s keeping that secret until after the mid-term elections as a boon to Democratic candidates. I went back and took a look at the proposal and here is the offending language: “The requirement is for an estimated 4 million cards annually with the potential to buy as many as 34 million cards total. The ordering periods for this requirement shall be for a total of five (5) years.” A draft RFP issued a few days later contains the same language but adds the following: “In addition, the Contractor shall demonstrate the capability to support potential “surge” in PRC and EAD card demand for up to 9M cards during the initial period of performance to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements.” You can view the proposal (here) and the RFP (here) and then read all the GSA bureaucratic verbiage for yourself. Have a good time.
Continue reading “Predicting Obama: Is The Right Ever Right?”
We have been discussing the extraordinary and public decision of President Barack Obama to withhold any information on his promised changes in immigration until after the election. While immigration remains one of the most important issues of this election, Obama officials have admitted to preparing for the changes while refusing to give any details or even summaries of what is being planned, as we discussed again yesterday. There has been surprisingly little hard reporting on the decision to withhold this information from voters until after they have voted. However, yesterday White House CBS reporter Major Garrett broke from the mainstream pack and pressed White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on a report that the Administration has order material for a “surge” of immigration IDs of up to 9 million in one year. Ernest called the questions “crazy” and encouraged everyone not to speculate . . . before the election obviously.
There is a new release out of Judicial Watch, which has been meeting with success in its effort to defeat extreme privilege assertions by the Obama Administration in seeking records related to the infamous Operation Fast and Furious. The Obama Administration has been repeatedly criticized for expansive claims of presidential power and privilege. I have been one of those critics. A federal court has expressed growing impatience and even anger with the Administration’s claims and obstruction — recently ordering production of evidence over the vehement objections of the Justice Department. However, nothing likely prepared them for what they claim is the privileges asserted on the “Vaughn index” produced by the Justice Department. The Administration is now reserving the claim of executive privilege over emails between Attorney General Holder and his wife Sharon Malone – as well as his mother. That’s right, executive privilege over communications with your family. It captures the lack of any sense of limitation or logic to the Obama Administration’s view of presidential power, which now overshadows the claims not just of George W. Bush but Richard Nixon.
We have previously discussed the public decision of President Obama to hold back from implementing his plan for immigration until after the election — and after voters can express their opposition at the voting places. Now, the Administration is not only public reaffirming that decision but insisting that (while they are preparing to implement the plan) they will also not tell anyone what they intend to do until after the elections. Those comments came from León Rodríguez, the new head of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) this week who tantalized an audience with the suggestion of sweeping but secret changes. It is extraordinary that politicians routinely get away with such positions. Millions are preparing to vote on the direction of the country, but one of the most important policies in this election is being openly hidden from them so that they cannot register their support or opposition.
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
I can still remember the first time I voted in a National election. I was a young, 18-year-old student and I could finally have a say in who was going to run the country. It was a proud day for me and the countless other 18 year olds who were also voting for the first time. I can honestly say that I have not missed voting in any election since. That includes both primary and general elections. There wasn’t always a lot to vote for in some of those primaries over the years, but I consider voting a duty, so I made sure that I made it to the polls.
It hasn’t always been easy for all citizens to cast their vote. Even in my lifetime, the Jim Crow laws of the South made it difficult, at best for African-Americans citizens to register and to cast their ballots. After years of protests and legal battles, I thought the Jim Crow style of voter suppression was a thing of the past. It turns out I was wrong. Very wrong. Continue reading “Voter ID Unmasked”
While President Barack Obama continues to assure the public that he is protecting privacy and the press, his Administration continues to do precisely the opposite in court with comprehensive attacks on civil liberties. A good example is the continued abuse of two-time Pulitzer prize winner and New York Times investigative reporter and author James Risen. Risen continues to be threatened by the Justice Department with arrest because he is protecting the identity of his sources. Risen spoke this weekend and observed simply that “Obama hates the press.”
Continue reading “New York Times Reporter: “Obama Hates The Press””