Judge Rosemary Collyet Power of the Purse: Does the US House Have Standing to Sue? Judge says "Yes" Jonathan Turley: FEDERAL COURT RULES THAT HOUSE HAS STANDING IN HISTORIC CHALLENGE The House’s entire legal team would like, first and foremost, to express its gratitude and respect for Judge Rosemary Collyer in issuing this historic and profound decision. The opinion is attached below. -- ( here it is: https://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/burwell-order-sept-9-2015.pdf ) The ruling today means that the United States House of Representatives now will be heard on an issue that drives to the very heart of our constitutional system: the control of the legislative branch over the “power of the purse.” We are eager to present the House’s merits arguments to the Court and remain confident that our position will ultimately prevail in establishing the unconstitutional conduct alleged in this lawsuit. Jonathan Turley Lead Counsel, United States House of Representatives v. Burwell The latest argument : Turley, who is the third lawyer to take the case after the first two quit, argued that what the president was doing in going around the appropriations process was an affront to a key power of Congress: the power of the purse. He said using a permanent appropriation to pay insurance companies rendered Congress’s control over appropriations “effectively decorative.” While this particular set of oral arguments was over standing, there was hardly a mention of the original inspiration for the lawsuit: the president’s delay of the employer mandate. While that debate would occur at a later hearing if the judge reaches the actual case, the House’s argument seems to have shifted. Turley told reporters after the oral arguments that the specific damage the House had endured — why the House has standing in this case — was because the executive branch was damaging the power of the purse. Obamacare Lawsuit Judge Sharply Questions Justice Lawyer---------------------- I think more than a few arguments have been used so far: l wonder what conservatives and other opponents of the ruling by Chief Justice Roberts think about a case with more than one argument? I remember when the Obama administration used two separate arguments (Commerce Clause and the power to tax -- with precedent for a fee functioning as a tax for constitutional purposes) on why the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should be ruled constitutional, and Roberts used the second argument to uphold the law, he was accused of making it up, when in reality it had been argued that way. I'm disappointed in Democratic Leader Pelosi's argument: Pelosi told reporters at her weekly news conference she's confident that Wednesday's ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer will be overturned... ... Pelosi called that ruling "astounding" and unprecedented. She says congressional Republicans "have tried 60 ways to repeal the Affordable Care Act and I believe this will be overturned." The California Democrat says an appeals court "will not want to be an arbiter" in a dispute between the legislative and executive branches. Pelosi: Judge's ruling in health care lawsuit 'astounding'She is not addressing the legal arguments or the Judge's ruling. I expect more from her as she is no Boehner.