U.S. Asks Judge to Dismiss (Democrats') Budget Lawsuit

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department on Tuesday asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by House Democrats trying to stop a $39 billion deficit-reducing bill because the House and Senate failed to approve identical versions.

Lawyers for the government said the 11 House members lacked standing because they are not renters of medical equipment covered by the section of the bill or are in "any way personally affected or injured" by other provisions in the measure.

House Democrats have accused GOP leaders of abusing the legislative process and contend they were denied their right to vote on legislation signed into law by President Bush.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and lead plaintiff, called the government's response "legally tenuous."

"In terms of standing, there is no more fundamental right in Congress than the right to vote, yet the administration would not only take this right away, but prevent duly elected members from asserting that right after it is taken away," he said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-budget-lawsuit,0,7005954.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[msongs]

1. where's the bush video about him being the dictator would be good?

I remember it from f 9/11.

dems ought to be running that clip on every tv station in America coupled with details about bush's disobeying the constitution he is sworn to uphold.

Msongs

listen to our song demos!
www.msongs.com/msongsdemos.htm

[UpInArms]

2. Monday, December 18, 2000 The Associated Press

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/121800/gen_1218007459.shtml

On the closely divided Congress, Bush said he told the congressional leaders that "there are going to be some times when we don't agree with each other."

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier," Bush said, pausing and then joking, "just so long as I'm the dictator."

It's not the video - but it is the news article.

[WhiteTara]

10. beat me to it UIA

big howdy and hug...good trip?
:hi: :hug:

[Rex]

3. So the Repukes signed an illegal bill into law?

What a surprise! :sarcasm:

[Rose Siding]

4. Bush signing it made it illegal and if the courts don't fix it now,

bigger trouble lay ahead. There will be an untold number of suits later- anyone to whom the law applies could sue. -that is, if the courts don't throw the whole legal system out the window for good.

[Tellurian]

5. Yep, you got that right. All they need is a precedent..

And we're doomed. The GOP do this routinely.

They pick the most nitpickey, banal issues, get their way,
then poof it becomes a battering ram used once more
for further shredding the Constitution.

Heres hoping this Judge doesn't fold like a cheap suit
and doesn't need or want anything he doesn't already have..

Judge, send the family somewhere safe.

[Igel]

6. This isn't a precedent.

All that needs to happen is for somebody actually affected--with legal standing--to file suit.

Then there might be a decision about the legality of what was done.

[Tellurian]

7. In the legal process, if what is customary/legal is allowed to change

without an objection filed and ultimately upheld by the court, the outcome, because of a lack of objection, becomes an adverse action to the custom. This sets a precedent that opens up a whole can of worms and is subject to new(all kinds of) interpretations.

In this case, Conyers is objecting to: "The Justice Department on Tuesday asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by House Democrats trying to stop a $39 billion deficit-reducing bill because the House and Senate failed to approve identical versions."

Then here, in the next paragraph:

"Lawyers for the government said the 11 House members lacked standing because they are not renters of medical equipment covered by the section of the bill or are in "any way personally affected or injured" by other provisions in the measure."

Is an old axiom commonly used. The government lawyers are claiming the House members are not personally affected in any way and should be viewed as disinterested partys without standing, therefore their objection should be denied by the court.

Conyers is saying, and rightfully so:

"In terms of standing, there is no more fundamental right in Congress than the right to vote, yet the administration would not only take this right away, but prevent duly elected members from asserting that right after it is taken away," he said.

Here is the scenario and the reason for Conyers objection:

"The Senate version of the bill said Medicare can pay to rent some types of medical equipment for 13 months, as congressional negotiators had sought. A clerk erroneously wrote down 36 months before the bill was sent back to the House for a final vote, and the language was approved by the House on Feb. 1.

When the bill was sent to Bush for his signature, the number was back to 13 months as approved by the Senate.

The White House and Republican leaders in Congress have said the matter is settled because the mistake was technical and top House and Senate leaders certified the bill before transmitting it to the White House.

Conyers and 10 Democrats sued in late April in U.S. District Court in Detroit, asking a judge to declare that the act is not law and provide a temporary restraining order to bar its implementation.

So, if Conyers didn't object pointing out what happened and acted on it, whether it was a deliberate or an honest mistake made by the clerk is irrelevant. If this misnomer had not been declared and pointed out and was left unchallenged, this seemingly small technicality would of/could of set a reference point and a precedent at a later date. Mainly, that the House and Senate could pass bills into law that weren't identical and agreed upon by a vote of the majority of both houses.

Mt response to Conyers:

"Good on ya, for once again foiling another malevolent plan with far reaching implications concocted by this nefarious administration.!"

[Igel]

8. Yes. So they need to actually find somebody that's

been affected and has standing. It's not as though a challenge has actually been filed; the suit was tossed out, but not on its merits.

If there is nobody with standing, whoopee, it's a moot point. I'm guessing finding somebody isn't a big problem, they just didn't want to have to leave their air conditioned offices.

[Tellurian]

9. Well, reading comprehension is key. The suit has NOT been tossed out!

Re-read the article, starting with the headline.

U.S. Asks Judge to Dismiss Budget Lawsuit

By KEN THOMAS
Associated Press Writer

June 27, 2006, 7:13 PM EDT

"WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department on Tuesday*asked* a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by House Democrats trying to stop a $39 billion deficit-reducing bill because the House and Senate failed to approve identical versions."


Just because the Justice Dept ASKED doesn't mean the Judged ruled in their favor. Unless, a judgment has been issued since the article's printing, that I'm not aware of. If you have a link stating the suit has been tossed out...please provide it.

[Biernuts]

12. You misunderstand separation of powers. President's don't

oversee how Congress votes. Instead, they are presented bills certified as passed by Congress. They then may sign it into law, veto, pocket veto, or let it become law after 10 days absent a veto.

[Biernuts]

11. Can you name any President within the last 100 years who

haven't been overturned, a law invalidated or an executive order blocked, by a court?