Republican judge ponders impeachment as another Obamacare lawsuit rears its ugly head

[Panich52]

So much for judicial impartiality...

Daily Kos

Republican judge ponders impeachment as another Obamacare lawsuit rears its ugly head

Will it ever end? No. Remember how a year ago House Republicans were all up in arms over President Obama's executive actions on immigration? And how they were talking about impeachment? Remember how Speaker John Boehner mollified them? With a lawsuit against Obama for a completely unrelated executive action—delaying the employer mandate under Obamacare, which was something that they wanted to have happen, anyway, and to use Treasury funds that were not appropriated by Congress to pay for $175 billion in subsidies to Obamacare customers.
It took Boehner three tries to get a lawyer to take the case, and thus it ended up not being filed until November. The first hearing in the District Court for the District of Columbia was heard Thursday, a hearing on the White House's motion to dismiss the case and to determine whether Congress actually had standing to sue. But Judge Rosemary Collyer, a George W. Bush appointee, made it clear that she was far more interested in the substance of the case, and furthermore pretty damned hostile to the president, including at one point pondering whether impeachment might not be an option.

Justice Department attorney Joel McElvain opened his argument by describing the House's objections to the Obamacare rules by calling it an "abstract dispute ...

Collyer responded by saying, "You don't really think that." She later added, "This is the problem I have with your brief—it's just not direct, ...

The judge also had pointed questions of the House GOP's attorney, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. Turley said that dismissing the lawsuit could limit the legislative branch's ability to combat future executive overreach. "That would mean that there's nothing we could do that would stop them," he said.

Collyer later responded in jest: "What about impeachment, is that an option?" She added, "I don't want to suggest… Don't anybody write that down."

McElvain went into the hearing to argue standing, and reasonably so because of that whole separation of powers thing in the Constitution which demands that disputes between the executive and Congress be worked out legislatively. ...

More
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/29/1388786/-Republican-judge-ponders-impeachment-as-another-Obamacare-lawsuit-rears-its-ugly-nbsp-head?detail=email

[yeoman6987]

1. Ok. Didn't congress pass this?

Yes the president signed it but congress is responsible for it. Why go after the president? Get the stupid congress who I can't stand.

[Fred Sanders]

2. In fairness, she said it in jest and in response to the pathetic argument of Republicans...maybe she

forgot the sarcasm emoticon?

The headline is more than a bit far-fetched.

[geek tragedy]

3. that's actually a perfectly legitimate argument.

The constitution does provide Congress multiple remedies if it feels the executive is out of control. It has the power of the purse, and it has the power of impeachment.

Those are constitutionally granted powers of Congress that allow it to reel in an out of control President.

There's no need for courts to referee such disputes.

[Romeo.lima333]

4. anyone else would need standing