PA-8: Fitzpatrick Defends Suing President on Party-line Vote

Oval OfficeMembers of Congress are getting ready to go on summer vacation, but not before the Republican-controlled House of Representatives decided to sue President Obama over his alleged overuse of executive power.

The vote highlighted the polarization of Congress as all the Democrats voted against the resolution and all but five Republicans voted for the it. Every representative from Pennsylvania voted along party lines.

The Republicans believe President Obama is utilizing executive orders in order to bypass Congress on important issues..

Mike Fitzpatrick cited Jonathan Turley when explaining the vote. Turley is a prominent lawyer and legal scholar who has testified in front of Congress about issues dealing with executive power. He has accused both the Bush and Obama Administrations of executive overreach and even testified for the impeachment of President Clinton.

“He expressed at the judiciary committee that, unfortunately, the president has overstepped his authority under the constitution, fairly clearly, that the House of Representatives has a very strong and firm basis to object and that an action would have merit,” Fitzpatrick said. “I would hope the president would come to Congress and ask for changes to the law rather than ignoring, bypassing or skirting the law, that’s what we seek.”

Democrats, meanwhile, are claiming that the lawsuit is a complete waste of time and money. Representative Bob Brady, for instance, wrote on Twitter, “Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on this lawsuit against the President, the GOP should pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act! #DoYourJobHouseGOP”

Whether the lawsuit is a stunt depends on what side you ask. In any event, the move to sue President Obama is another sign of the antagonism between the two political parties.

20 Responses

  1. Thanks Doctor S. hindsight is 20/20. I know someone who was sporting an “Impeach Clinton” bumper sticker BEFORE Clinton was inaugurated the FIRST time. So that is the pattern from now on.

  2. @ Andrew:

    Disproving your assertion is a cinch, inasmuch as nothing will have transpired of substance prior to the mid-terms; on what basis do you claim this effort “polls poorly” when so many people [particularly indies] view the POTUS as acting in an imperial fashion?

  3. The House lawsuit against the president is a political and fundraising stunt meant to stimulate midterm election turnout. It polls miserably. Fitzpatrick’s “reasons” are pure bull, and were probably constructed after hours of scurrying by his staff. Kevin Strouse, here’s an issue for you. Got get him!

  4. Someone, please reiterate what Sen. Mitch McConnell said at the beginning of the Obama presidency?

  5. Building upon what Kent kindly provided, the injury is to the institution, for the will of the House was abrogated by the Executive.

  6. Mr Skarloff M.D, please explain how the Republican House Caucus has standing on this issue. What injury has been done to a single member of this body. I await your reply.

  7. Nick Field,
    1.Why is this story not about every other republican that voted for this?
    2.Why is the story about Kevin Strouse’s campaign staffer and fellow Bristol Boro native, Deidre French, and her racist, anti-gay, and anti-mormon tweets being ignored when this very site covered the similar story about inappropriate social media by Fitzpatrick’s daughter?
    3. Is the writer of this story also a Temple student or alum where he may possibly have a relationship with Ms. French?
    4. Did your former employer tell you to keep pressure on Fitzpatrick or to keep boosting this race which no one with any brains believes is close?

  8. You fail to refute the fact that he has been slapped-down repeatedly by the SCOTUS, often unanimously.

  9. Pardon me, but BHO is a Constitutional Lawyer. Skarloff…you wouldn’t want to play poker with him. He has proved time and time again that he has got game. Your clock would get cleaned playing a round with him as the grand oil party is soon going to find out. 😉

  10. BHO has hit the trifecta, repeatedly: he doesn’t enforce laws [changing them on the fly], he selectively enforces the law [invoking “discretion”], and he writes his own laws [contradicting the constitution, inter alia].

    This is why he has been struck-down repeatedly by the SCOTUS [often 9-0, not 5-4], such as when HE decided the Senate wasn’t in session, contradicting the Senate’s prerogative to determine its own functions.

    Thus, this litigation is vital and, indeed, if there is any entity that has had its powers usurped by the Imperial-POTUS, it is the Congress; thus, it is probably the ONLY entity that could be granted standing [and that’s why Boehner focused the litigation on one act, rather than a multitude of behaviors].

    As usual, DD invokes racism; this has nothing to do with anything and, thus, he reveals himself to be a reverse-racist; he should also recall that he has ignored unfinished-business on other web-pages, including wild assertions he hasn’t bothered to document [because he can’t].

    BHO’s Scandal-Sheet will predictably have this additional entry and, thus, one can predict that the Dem-POTUS nominee will, by the fall of ’16, have to sport multiple albatrosses if the Dems are to retain 1600 [BenghaziGate hearings start next month…the IRS data (that isn’t already leaking) must be detailed to two federal judges within a fortnight…the Fast and Furious papers should be released shortly…Brennan admitted he spied on the Senate (contradicting his sworn-testimony)…].

  11. There were 4 constitutional scholars/lawyers at that hearing and they contradicted each other. Fitzpatrick sided with his party citing Turley. Turley has been an opponent of the ACA but he lost that argument as the SCOTUS approved it.
    What is impossible is a complete and accurate interpretation of the Constitution. If it were that easy we would not have split decisions. The suit is based on the extension of the deadline given to businesses for compliance with the ACA. There was no way to have a debate over this extension by taking it to congress as congress voted to repeal it so Fitzpatrick’s statement “I would hope the president would come to Congress and ask for changes to the law rather than ignoring, bypassing or skirting the law, that’s what we seek.” is shallow.
    There is likely precedence for Obamas action.
    If a judge finds there is standing, it will be decided by an interpretation of the law as the judge understands it. That will not make it right or wrong. It will make it decided.
    The congress is suing Obama for acting on his own, and yesterday the speaker of the House told us that Obama can and should do something on his own for the immigration problem because the House failed to pass a good bill. Will Mr Fitzpatrick please tell us what Boehner intended by that comment? Boehner clearly said, the president can act on his own and should.
    Lastly, this suit is going to be expensive. We have been burdened with the expense by a legislature that told us we cannot afford to fix the infrastructure and every expenditure has to be paid for by cutting somewhere else. So what is being cut to pay for this lawsuit?
    Congressman, you have no defense, shame on you.

  12. Does Fitzpatrick or Turley explain how Congress has standing and why this isn’t one of those frivolous lawsuits Republicans are always complaining about. Or why the GOP was for the small business rollout delay and now is against it?

Comments are closed.

Email:
  • Reader Poll: Have You Requested a Mail-In Ballot?


    • Yes. I enjoy mail-in voting. (50%)
    • No. I am going to the poll. (50%)

    Total Voters: 121

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen