LIBERAL lawyer to represent the House of Representatives

[franksolich]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/liberal-lawyer-represent-house-representatives-against-obama_819563.html

Oh my.

Liberal Lawyer to Represent House of Representatives Against Obama

Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor and attorney, announced on his blog Tuesday he will be representing the House of Representatives in its lawsuit against the Obama administration. Here's Turley:

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.....

Turley has been an outspoken supporter of both liberal causes and of curbing the growth of executive power. The lawyer has also spoken out recently against the proposed executive order on immigration, calling it a "sad" and "dangerous moment."

[thundley4]

I hope the HOR and Sen. also sues over  any amnesty plans that Obama pushes through.

[Big Dog]

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. 

The last 8 words of this paragraph struck me funny.

The Constitution allows for two exercises of legislative power against executive branch usurpation- impeachment and defunding. Neither requires the permission of the judicial branch.

A lawsuit by Congress against the President subordinates the legislative branch to the judiciary, while seeking to end subordination to the executive. Trading one master for another.

[wasp69]

A lawsuit by Congress against the President subordinates the legislative branch to the judiciary, while seeking to end subordination to the executive. Trading one master for another.

My thoughts, exactly.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The last 8 words of this paragraph struck me funny.

The Constitution allows for two exercises of legislative power against executive branch usurpation- impeachment and defunding. Neither requires the permission of the judicial branch.

A lawsuit by Congress against the President subordinates the legislative branch to the judiciary, while seeking to end subordination to the executive. Trading one master for another.

It is more complicated than that, there is a whole background in common law predating the Constitution for ANYONE (Including another branch of government, in our system) who has standing and meets other jurisdictional requirements to seek a 'Writ of Mandamus' or 'Writ of Prohibition' to make the Executive do something or refrain from doing something. 

In that sense, the high court does have that superiority legally.  Practically, that has generally not been messed with since Andy Jackson told them to stuff it after the Indians beat him in the court, but since Jackson knew there was no chance he'd be impeached over it, he proceeded to steal their land, exile them from it, and kill them off anyway...hardly what we'd call 'Rule of law' today, but even back then no subsequent Presidents ever went that far, and it's pretty unlikely that even Obama would try it now (But ya never know).   

As a German attorney once told me about the philosophical basis of their own highest Constitutional court (Verfassungsgericht), a high court 'Should be a brake, not an engine.'  Both the other branches are subordinate to the Judiciary in that conception, but the check on that judicial power is that the court is not supposed to legislate or initiate laws from the bench, only rule on the acts of the other two branches (Almost entirely the Executive branch in practice, since no matter what the Legislative branch does, they are not the final actors on implementing any laws).   

Beginning with the Warren and Douglas courts, unfortunately, there is a dangerous thread in American legal circles that courts should actually initiate social change rather than simply keep the other two branches honest.

[thundley4]

It is more complicated than that, there is a whole background in common law predating the Constitution for ANYONE (Including another branch of government, in our system) who has standing and meets other jurisdictional requirements to seek a 'Writ of Mandamus' or 'Writ of Prohibition' to make the Executive do something or refrain from doing something. 

In that sense, the high court does have that superiority legally.  Practically, that has generally not been messed with since Andy Jackson told them to stuff it after the Indians beat him in the court, but since Jackson knew there was no chance he'd be impeached over it, he proceeded to steal their land, exile them from it, and kill them off anyway...hardly what we'd call 'Rule of law' today, but even back then no subsequent Presidents ever went that far, and it's pretty unlikely that even Obama would try it now (But ya never know).   

As a German attorney once told me about the philosophical basis of their own highest Constitutional court (Verfassungsgericht), a high court 'Should be a brake, not an engine.'  Both the other branches are subordinate to the Judiciary in that conception, but the check on that judicial power is that the court is not supposed to legislate or initiate laws from the bench, only rule on the acts of the other two branches (Almost entirely the Executive branch in practice, since no matter what the Legislative branch does, they are not the final actors on implementing any laws).   

Beginning with the Warren and Douglas courts, unfortunately, there is a dangerous thread in American legal circles that courts should actually initiate social change rather than simply keep the other two branches honest.

I don't look at the lawsuit against Obama as surrendering congressional authority to the courts, but more as trying to get the courts to side with congress.  If two branches of government agree the third is overstepping their authority, then it means a little more than just 1 against 1.

[txradioguy]

My thoughts, exactly.

The Congress has all the power they need under Article 1 to stop the President from what he's doing.  Any judge wort their black robe should tell them that if this is brought before them.

Turley should kow this too.  He's not representing his "client" very well if he hasn't told them this already.  HE's using them as a guinea pig for his own purposes.

[docstew]

I don't look at the lawsuit against Obama as surrendering congressional authority to the courts, but more as trying to get the courts to side with congress.  If two branches of government agree the third is overstepping their authority, then it means a little more than just 1 against 1.

Plus, if the USSC sides with Congress and states that 0 has acted unconstitutionally, then that COULD be grounds for impeachment. And the judge in an impeachment trial is the Chief Justice, the jury is the Senate.