First Oral Arguments Against Obamacare Heard Today, 7.21.2010

First Oral Arguments Against Obamacare Heard Today, 7.21.2010

On March 21st, the traitors in Congress told the American public to sit down, shut up, and eat gruel like good little revenue streams when they shoved Obamacare across the finish line all the while lying about promising cost savings, lower taxes, deficit neutral mana from heaven, and the winning lottery numbers.  Chairman Zero proceeded to sign Pelosi and Reid’s shameless atrocity into law and before the ink was dry, the Thomas More Law Center had once again stood up for the American People when they filed suit against the federal government on the unconstitutionality of this law.

Obama’s DoJ came back with the commerce clause argument.

Washington — Critics who allege that Congress overstepped the U.S. Constitution by requiring Americans to carry health insurance are “flatly wrong,” the Obama administration said Wednesday in its first court defense of the landmark health care law.

Congress acted well within its power to regulate interstate commerce and to provide for the general welfare, Justice Department lawyers argued in a 46-page brief filed in federal district court in Detroit. For the courts to overturn President Barack Obama’s signature domestic legislation would amount to unwarranted interference with the policymaking authority of Congress, they added.

A few days ago, Bambi and crew realized that the commerce clause two-step was not going to fly so they changed their tune and started using the “Congress can tax” part of the founding documents for cover.

Today the first oral arguments on the Constitutional challenge of this law will be heard in a federal district court by Judge George C. Steeh.

(more…)

Today’s AYFKM? Award Goes To The DOJ

As my readers may have noticed today, there appears to be a battle between hackers and my host.  I am just waiting for the smoke to clear to see who wins and what I will have to do if my site does actually get crashed.

Yesterday, I wrote Paging Perkins Coie, Paging Perkins Coie, STAT! because of the new Taitz lawsuit in California District Court featuring an affidavit from Lucas Smith stating that he had travelled to Kenya and obtained Barack Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate from the Coast General Hospital.

Today, a reader, Kathy dropped a link about how the DOJ has stepped in hoping to get the case thrown out.  That is some arrogance; not only do we once again get to hear we have no standing and his records continue to be sealed, but we get the privilege of paying to have a case thrown out instead of Bambi having to pay Perkins Coie (again).

From Politico:

DOJ to judge: dump birthers’ suit

The Justice Department is urging a federal court to toss out a lawsuit in which prominent birthers’ attorney Orly Taitz is challenging President Barack Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to be president.

In a motion filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, Calif., government lawyers did not directly rebut the conspiracy theory Taitz propounds that Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claims and as asserted by Hawaiian officials as well as contemporary newspaper birth notices. Instead, the federal attorneys argued that the suit is inherently flawed because such disputes can’t be resolved in court and because the dozens of plaintiffs can’t show they are directly injured by Obama’s presence in office.

“It is clear, from the text of the Constitution, and the relevant statutory law implementing the Constitution’s textual commitments, that challenges to the qualifications of a candidate for President can, in the first instance, be presented to the voting public before the election, and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in the Congress,” Assistant United States Attorneys Roger West and David DeJute wrote. “Therefore, challenges such as those purportedly raised in this case are committed, under the Constitution, to the electors, and to the Legislative branch.”

“The injuries alleged by Plaintiff Freese and the other military Plaintiffs herein, are not  particularized as to them, but, rather, would be shared by all members of the military and is an inadequate basis on which to establish standing,” the government lawyers wrote.

The Justice Department brief takes a few shots at the wackiness of the birthers, accusing them of trafficking in “innuendo” and advancing “a variety of vaguely-defined claims purportedly related to a hodgepodge of constitutional provisions, civil and criminal statutes, and the Freedom of Information Act.”

The case is set for a hearing Tuesday morning before Judge David Carter. There’s a strong chance the session will devolve into something of a sideshow since a couple of plaintiffs in the case are now in a dispute with Taitz and have sought to bring in a different attorney to represent them in the case.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1667 access attempts in the last 7 days.

%d bloggers like this: