Federal Judge Blasts Obama Lawyers Arguing Obamacare Case

 NEWSMAX

• 0
  inShare

A U.S. judge on Thursday blasted the Obama administration's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives over the implementation of the Democratic president's signature healthcare law.

Republicans in the House filed a lawsuit in November, saying administration officials unlawfully bypassed Congress.

At issue are executive changes authorizing Treasury payments to healthcare insurers without the funding being agreed by Congress and delaying implementation of the law's employer mandate, which required employers with more than 50 employees to provide healthcare coverage.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, appointed by Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, repeatedly interrupted U.S. Justice Department lawyer Joel McElvain during the hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Justice Department lawyers argue that the House lacks standing to sue, citing a section of U.S. law that means the House would have to prove it has been directly harmed.

"So it is your position that if the House of Representatives affirmatively voted not to fund something ... then that vote can be ignored by the administration, because after all, no one can sue them?" she asked.

McElvain argued that the merits of the case were not being discussed at the hearing, and that any perceived injury was "abstract."

"I'm not asking you to give me your brief. I want you to explain ... why it's not an insult to the Constitution?" Collyer said.

McElvain argued that the House could pass new legislation if it disagreed with the administration's changes, which he said were legal under "pre-existing permanent appropriation."

At another point, Collyer admonished McElvain: "You can't just shake your head and not deal with the question."

The lawsuit is one of a flurry filed against the Obama administration in the past few months challenging executive actions on healthcare and immigration as Republicans seek to amp up pressure on the president.

Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the House Republicans, said the lawsuit should go forward to show the power of the purse "should not be decorative."

The judge, while appearing sympathetic to the Republicans' decision to bring the lawsuit, said she had not yet decided on the standing issue before her.

Conservatism 101: Who is Really a Conservative?

Bethany Blankley / Townhall Columnist

 

Most Americans, including most Republicans, do not understand what “conservative” philosophy, principles, and policies are.

Merriam-Webster defines conservative as “believing in the philosophy of conservatism,” which it defines as “belief in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society; dislike of change or new ideas in a particular area.”

However, this definition is wrong. The root of conservatism lies in the concept of “ordered liberty” and the fundamental truth that human rights are God-given, not man-made and that individual liberty and freedom are birthrights.

Calvin Coolidge, America’s 30th president—perhaps the most conservative president of the last century—emphasized the underpinning conservative principle of the rule of law rests solely on “the divine origin of mankind.”

In his speech, The Price of Freedom, Coolidge emphasized that in America’s founding documents “there resulted the recognition that freedom was a birthright. It was the natural and inalienable condition of beings who were created ‘a little lower than the angels.’ With it went the principle of equality, not an equality of possessions, not an equality of degree, but an equality in the attributes of humanity, an equality of kind. Each is possessed of the divine power to know the truth.”

Likewise, conservative commentator Dennis Prager defines conservatism by what he calls “The American Trinity,” which preserves three fundamental truths. First, “In God We Trust” is the foundation for the rule of law. Manmade laws are designed to protect God-given human rights. From that, “E Pluribus Unum,” a unified and diverse people are encouraged to live peaceably, with “liberty” in their pursuit of happiness.

Within the American Trinity and republican form of government, the electorate determines the moral and ethical decisions and laws through representatives acting on their behalf. In theory, the electorate governs through limited local, state, and federal governments that restrain and punish the malfeasant and enable ingenuity, personal responsibility, entrepreneurship, creativity, and a range of its citizens’ pursuits.

The electorate may redefine and change moral and legal constraints but conservatism does not.

Hillary tipped murdered ambassador's movements in emails

Secretary of state was using her unsecured private server

Aaron Klein / WND

In the year prior to the deadly 2012 Benghazi attack, Hillary Clinton used her private email server to correspond about such highly sensitive national security matters as specific threats to the Libya hotel where Ambassador Chris Stevens was staying as well as his decision to remain at the hotel despite the threats.

The emails, released May 22 by the State Department, also contained the exact movements of Stevens while he was stationed in arguably one of the most dangerous zones in the world for any American diplomat, a WND review has found.

On April 24, 2011, Clinton’s senior aide, Huma Abedin, forwarded to Clinton’s personal email an internal State email from that same day written by Timmy Davis and sent to Abedin as well as to the State email addresses of other employees, including Clinton’s then-foreign policy aide, Jacob Sullivan.

The email cited a local report stating hotels in Benghazi were being targeted.

The email, which ran through Clinton’s personal server, stated the interim Libyan government “conducted a raid on a house/storage facility and found and arrested an Egyptian cell reportedly there for the purpose of attacking hotels.”

Despite the threat, the email revealed Stevens “still feels comfortable in the hotel,” meaning the email exposed that the ambassador would continue to stay there.

“They are looking into the idea of moving into a villa, but that is some way off,” the email continued.

“Based on discussion with DS yesterday, the hotel remains the safest location.”

Startlingly, the email contained information about Stevens’ exact movements, including that he “will be meeting with MFA in one hour and will make a written request for better security at the hotel and for better security-related coordination.”

On June 10, 2011, Sullivan sent an email to Clinton’s personal address informing that “there is credible threat info against the hotel that our team is using – and the rest of the Intl community is using, for that matter.”

That email divulged: “DS going to evacuate our people to alt locations. Info suggested attack in next 24-48 hours. Will keep you posted.”

Yet another sent to Clinton from Abedin detailed Stevens’ movements regarding his hotel stay.

“The envoy’s delegation is currently doing a phased checkout (paying the hotel bills, moving some comms to the boat, etc.),” wrote Abedin. “He (Stevens) will monitor the situation to see if it deteriorates further, but no decision has been made on departure. He will wait 2-3 more hours, then revisit the decision on departure.”

With additional research by Joshua Klein.