This morning, from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r), via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Yesterday the House voted to defend the Constitution and curb executive overreach. Read my statement here: [….] 8:29 AM – 31 Jul 2014

She voted with the republican majority in the House to authorize a lawsuit against President Obama.

There were a number of responses:

pat ‏@PATR2014

@RepHartzler what Constittution..it has Redress built in ..but party of stupid sued instead. Keep listening to @KarlRove. 8:32 AM – 31 Jul 2014

That was blunt.

Lady With A Voice ‏@champa10

@RepHartzler Not buying it lady. Yet GOP wants America to believe they bare no blame.. Since day 1 your party has been NO GO GOP! 8:32 AM – 31 Jul 2014

So was that.

Cody Welton ‏@acoupstick

@RepHartzler Do nothing, blame Obama. Wash, rinse, repeat. 8:34 AM – 31 Jul 2014

I don’t think they actually wash and rinse.

hungryprof ‏@hungryprof

@RepHartzler Please. You’re probably smart enough to know how stupid and wasteful this lawsuit is but you’re afraid to speak up. 10:04 AM – 31 Jul 2014

That assumes facts not in evidence.

Bob Yates ‏@OldDrum

@RepHartzler Why such a half measure? If the President has violated the Constitution, you should impeach him! 10:56 AM – 31 Jul 2014

One can only hope, Bob.

Thursday, at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals [pdf]:

FILED

DEC 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-56827

D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN

OPINION

[….] Representative CYNTHIA DAVIS, Missouri [….] State Representative TIMOTHY

JONES, Esq., Missouri [….]

Plaintiffs,

v.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA; MICHELLE L.R. OBAMA; HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, Secretary of State; ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of Defense; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Vice President and President of the Senate [….]

Defendants – Appellees.

Appellate cases are always an interesting read because there’s usually a succinct summary of what’s what:

Plaintiffs-Appellants contend that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States. United States District Court Judge David O. Carter dismissed Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, as well as their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, for lack of standing. We affirm the dismissal for lack of standing, albeit on somewhat different reasoning than that of the District Court.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Well, that was short and to the point.

[….]

A.

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS: STANDING

[….]

3. State Representatives

Plaintiffs allege that state representatives have “unique standing” because they have a “special non-delegable constitutional right and responsibility to verify the qualifications of the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America who is responsible for allocating large sums of [federal] funds, since receipt of funds from any officer without legal authority would be complicity in theft or conversion.”

In South Lake Tahoe, we rejected as insufficient to establish standing a similar contention that a public official could conceivably be exposed to civil liability while carrying out his official duties. 625 F.2d at 238-39. We noted that whether the officials could in fact be subject to civil liability was dependent on “multiple contingencies,” including the likelihood of any civil suit and the question whether the official would be immune from any such suit. Id. at 239. The alleged harm to the state representatives in this case is just as speculative and conjectural as in South Lake Tahoe, for similar reasons. This group of plaintiffs therefore fails to establish standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.

[….]

[footnote] 6 Plaintiffs never filed a motion for leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint and only mentioned in passing such a request in their motion for reconsideration, filed on November 9, 2009, after the District Court granted

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. [end footnote]

[….]

…noting that Plaintiffs had six months between the original complaint and the amended complaint to attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The District Court found Plaintiffs’ “failure to do so inexcusable.”

[….]

***

The District Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims for lack of Article III standing. Moreover, the District Court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ quo warranto, FOIA, or RICO claims. Accordingly, the dismissal by the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Appellants’ emergency petition for writ of mandamus, filed November 8, 2011, is DENIED.

[….]

COUNSEL

Gary G. Kreep, Ramona, California, and Orly Taitz, Rancho Santa Margarita, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

[….]

[emphasis in original]

That reads a might testy.

It’s gonna be really interesting when Speker Elect Jones (r) takes over.

Oh, boy. Pass the popcorn. It looks like Missouri State Auditor Tom Schweich (r) probably won’t assimilate this lesson.

@tonymess Tony Messenger

Post-Dispatch: Editorial: Auditor’s lawsuit values his budget over victims of Joplin tornado bit.ly/pVskRn 7 hours ago

Evidently the State Auditor doesn’t understand the optics. In today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Editorial: Auditor’s lawsuit values his budget over victims of Joplin tornado

Say this for Missouri Auditor Thomas Schweich: His audacity knows no bounds.

On Friday, Mr. Schweich, a Republican, sued Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, over how Mr. Nixon has chosen to balance the state’s budget.

On its surface, the action might seem like just another example of a politician who equates governance with campaigning, a typical attempt at blatant partisanship wrapped up in legal arguments weaker than a first-year law student’s paper written after an all-night bender….

…Missourians should be grateful that our constitution and our Legislature gave the governor the flexibility to respond to disasters. That same constitution gave Mr. Schweich a legitimate avenue to protest Mr. Nixon’s decisions: He could run for governor.

Good luck getting votes in Joplin.

[emphasis added]

@tonymess Tony Messenger

Did Schweich really hold presser to demand retraction on editorial about lawsuit he refused to talk about? Really? Good luck with that. 3 hours ago

Yep, there you have it, the best State Auditor money could buy.

@tonymess Tony Messenger

Schweich is right about the need for an apology on the editorial. I apologize to post-bender first-year law students. bit.ly/ocK2iq 3 hours ago

Okay, that left a mark.

Otto West: Don’t call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?

Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself.” And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

Previously: Am I still shrill? (July 6, 2011)

“…The summary statement here is insufficient and unfair because it deceives and misleads voters about what the Proposed Constitutional Amendment would do, and would not do, and, thus, is neither true nor impartial, but instead likely to create prejudice for the proposed measure…”

Civil Rights Groups Sue Missouri Officials Over “Deceptive and Misleading” Voter ID Ballot Initiative

ST. LOUIS, MO — Advancement Project, the Fair Elections Legal Network (FELN), the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri today announced a legal challenge to a ballot proposal to amend the state constitution’s voting requirements, saying that the ballot language misleads voters and if passed will restrict the voting rights of Missourians, including the elderly, people with disabilities, and students, among others.

The ballot initiative, SJR2, slated to be placed on the ballot for November 2012, was passed by the legislature in May in an attempt to circumvent the Missouri Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling that restrictive photo ID voting laws are unconstitutional.

“I cannot imagine anything more cynical and shameful than using the voting process itself to trick voters into giving up their rights,” said Denise Lieberman, senior attorney for Advancement Project, a civil rights organization that works to eliminate barriers to voting and has been fighting photo ID laws across the country. “Just as the Missouri Supreme Court rejected Missouri’s photo ID law as a ‘heavy and substantial burden’ on voting rights, the court should reject this deceptive initiative. It does not make clear to voters that they will be giving up a fundamental right.”

The lawsuit – the first-ever challenge to a constitutional amendment on photo ID laws and the first lawsuit in the nation filed challenging the rash of photo ID proposals introduced in states across the country this year- was filed on Wednesday and names eight Missouri voters as plaintiffs….

Yep, true to form, republicans will do anything to suppress the vote of their opposition. They have a plan.

The lawsuit as filed:

http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=59534746&access_key=key-s4whi35odzh0mqgk429&page=1&viewMode=list

Missouri Attoney General Chris Koster filed an amicus brief [pdf] today in a federal lawsuit challenging health care reform.

From Attorney General Koster’s letter to the leadership of the Missouri General Assembly:

…Although these are complex questions on which many scholars, judges, and interested parties sincerely disagree, it is the opinion of this office that the Congress reached beyond current Commerce Clause precedent when it regulated that individuals maintain “minimum essential [healthcare] coverage” or pay a penalty. Therefore, it follows that the federal courts, in reviewing this aspect of the law, must either expand Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, justify the provision on alternate constitutional grounds, or strike down the individual mandate.

It is also the legal view of this office that the individual mandate is severable from the ACA and that those provisions of the bill not clearly dependant upon the mandate may stand. Our argument against the expansion of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority is emphatically not based on any opposition to the expansion of health coverage for uninsured Americans.

To the contrary, I favor the expansion of health coverage…

Randy Turner at The Turner Report has a post up about focus group results released as part of the discovery in the Faux News Channel lawsuit against Robin Carnahan’s (D) 2010 senate campaign. There’s an interesting refrain about ACORN, showing that the rightwing’s assault based on fake charges and Congress’ capitulation with a bill of attainder did more damage than just shutting down the group which legitimately registered voters and provided other legitimate services.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Documents in Fox News lawsuit indicate why Robin Carnahan lost Senate election

Documents turned over to Fox News attorneys by a consulting firm provide evidence why Roy Blunt defeated Robin Carnahan in last year’s U. S. Senate race….

….Among the comments from people asked about their greatest concerns about Robin Carnahan:

-Why was she quiet about ACORN?….

-May have ignored problems with ACORN, whatever that is….

-She is too close to ACORN.

-I would want to know if there is any truth to those ACORN accusations….

-She supports ACORN.

-Too cheesy or fake with the farming. Too tied in with ACORN….

-She is too much a yes man for the president. She also caused too much money to given to the ACORN people.

-How closely is she tied to special interests like ACORN?….

-What is ACORN?….

Never mind that the rightwing and their Mighty Wurlitzer stooges beat their truthiness drum. As we can see, all they have to do is repeat the lie.

At Show Me Progress:

ACORN vindicated (March 2, 2010)

….Get that – the videos were “edited to meet their agenda.” In other words, these full-of-themselves rightwing echo chamber trainees, O’Keefe and  Giles, were running a scam.

The Brooklyn investigation is the third such to cast doubt on O’Keefe’s and Giles’ veracity. Investigations by the former Massachusetts Attorney, Scott Harshbarger, and the Congressional Research Service have found ACORN innocent of wrong doing….

At the Huffington Post:

John Atlas

Posted: June 15, 2010 02:41 AM

ACORN Vindicated of Wrongdoing by the Congressional Watchdog Office

On Monday, June 14, a preliminary probe by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)of ACORN has found no evidence the association or related organizations mishandled the $40 million in federal money they received in recent years.

A review of grants by nine federal agencies found no problems with ACORN’s grants. In my book Seeds of Change I document how ACORN, the largest most successful national anti poverty organization in America, was forced to close its door….

….In fact the staff in most of ACORN’s offices turned the pair away, reported the couple to the police, refused to provide them any aid, and in one case tried to convince the phony prostitute to get counseling. In no ACORN office did employees file any paperwork or do anything illegal on the duo’s behalf.

But Fox News broadcasted the deceptive tapes nearly around the clock for several days defaming ACORN….

[emphasis added]

Ironic, eh? And they have a plan.

HR 39 was passed last week by the House. The resolution calls for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster (D) to join in the frivolous anti-health care reform lawsuits getting smacked down in federal courtrooms across the country.

With apologies to Atrios

From Representative Denny Hoskins’ (r-noun, verb, CPA) January 13, 2011 “Capitol Report”:

….The full House already voted on some bills this week.  I’m pleased to report on a resolution to urge Missouri to join 20 other state attorneys general in a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of the federal health care requirement.  I voted for HCR 39 and am hopeful Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster will enter into this lawsuit to make health insurance a personal choice….

There were a few amendments. A personal favorite (from the Journal of the House [pdf] for January 11, 2011):

….Representative Kelly (24) offered House Amendment No. 4.

House Amendment No. 4

AMEND House Resolution No. 39, Page 1, Line 29, by deleting the following:

“Missouri Lieutenant Governor”, and inserting in lieu thereof the words “private citizen”….

Heh.

That amendment was further amended. And then:

….On motion of Representative Franz, House Resolution No. 39, as amended, was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: 115

Allen Asbury Bahr Barnes Bernskoetter Berry Black Brandom Brattin Brown 85 Brown 116 Burlison Casey Cauthorn Cierpiot Conway 14 Conway 27 Cookson Cox Crawford Cross Curtman Davis Day Denison Dieckhaus Diehl Dugger Elmer Entlicher Faith Fallert Fisher Fitzwater Flanigan Fraker Franklin Franz Frederick Fuhr Gatschenberger Gosen Grisamore Guernsey Haefner Hampton Harris Higdon Hinson Hodges Hoskins Hough Houghton Johnson Jones 89 Jones 117 Keeney Kelley 126 Klippenstein Koenig Korman Lair Lant Largent Lasater Lauer Leach Leara Lichtenegger Loehner Long Marshall McCaherty McGhee McNary Molendorp Nance Neth Nolte Parkinson Phillips Pollock Quinn Redmon Reiboldt Richardson Riddle Rowland Ruzicka Sater Schad Scharnhorst Schatz Schieber Schieffer Schneider Schoeller Shively Shumake Silvey Smith 150 Solon Stream Swinger Thomson Torpey Wallingford Wells Weter White Wieland Wright Wyatt Zerr Mr Speaker

NOES: 046

Anders Atkins Aull Brown 50 Carlson Carter Colona Curls Ellinger Holsman Hubbard Hummel Jones 63 Kander Kelly 24 Kirkton Kratky Lampe May McCann Beatty McDonald McGeoghegan McManus McNeil Meadows Montecillo Nasheed Newman Nichols Oxford Pace Peters-Baker Pierson Rizzo Schupp Sifton Smith 71 Spreng Still Swearingen Talboy Taylor Walton Gray Webb Webber Zimmerman

PRESENT: 000

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 002

Funderburk Hughes

[emphasis added]

As for the frivolous part:

Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Health Care Reform Law

Doug Mataconis Wednesday, December 1, 2010

….If nothing else, this case points out just how difficult it will be for any of the Plaintiffs involved in the lawsuits against the health care reform bill to convince any Court of Appeals of the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate, not to mention the Supreme Court. In order for the Courts to do so, they are going to have to find more than 60 years of Commerce Clause jurisprudence to have been wrongly decided, and the odds of that happening seem to be slim indeed…

Uh, that’s legal talk for the lawsuits being a colossal waste of time.

And, according to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing health care reform would add significantly to the deficit:

CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act

….Because CBO and JCT estimated that the March 2010 health care legislation would reduce budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period and in subsequent years, we expect that repealing that legislation would increase budget deficits. The resulting increase in deficits projected for fiscal years 2012 through 2019 is likely to be similar in size to-but not exactly the same as-the reduction in deficits that was originally estimated to result from the enacted legislation….

Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade

As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the 2012-2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the basis of the original estimate), plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. Adding two more years (through 2021) brings the projected increase in deficits to something in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes….

There you have it. The federal lawsuits are a waste of time and repeal of health care reform would significantly increase the deficit. For republicans, what’s not to like?

A bit of Missouri legal news:

Warrensburg Schools settle sexual abuse lawsuit by female athletes, will pay them $809,000

Nov 11, 2010, 10:57 PM

WARRENSBURG, Mo. – The sexual abuse lawsuit filed by six Warrensburg High School female athletes has been settled out of court, with the school district’s insurer agreeing to pay the girls $809,000….

….The girls’ attorney, Ronnie Podolefsky, told Digitalburg Thursday that while the girls were happy about the settlement, “It was never about the money. We never requested money.” It was about ethics and civil rights, she said.

This settlement says “We should be listening to our children,” Podolefsky said, and “We can stand up for what’s right.”

While the school district did not acknowledge any admission of guilt, liability or wrongdoing, Podolefsky said “The number ($809,000) speaks for itself. The settlement agreement says “…this settlement is made solely for the purpose of avoiding the expense of further litigation…”

[emphasis added]

$809,000.00 is a lot of money. It does speak for itself, don’t you think?

We first wrote about a part of this story:

Three steps behind, and to the right (January 25, 2008)

And last wrote about it:

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a few small tokens of our esteem (May 16, 2010)

Interestingly, in addition to Ronnie Podolefsky, the plaintiffs also had Roxanne Conlin representing them. Yes, that Roxanne Conlin.