It's a well-known fact that Libs file lawsuits right, left and center. And that most lawyers are Libs. It's their modus operandus. Part of their sliminess.

And now - taking Lib Lawsuits to the next level is the Mueller Investigation/Trump-Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory

Liberals’N’Lawsuits

[www.nationalreview.com]

Too much reliance on litigation is bad for the courts and the Dems.

Who do you think said this: “Reliance on constitutional lawsuits to achieve policy goals has become a wasting addiction among American progressives. . . . Whatever you feel about the rights that have been gained through the courts, it is easy to see that dependence on judges has damaged the progressive movement and its causes”? Rush Limbaugh? Laura Ingraham? George Bush? The author is David von Drehle, a Washington Post columnist. This admission, by a self-identified liberal, is refreshing stuff. It is a healthy sign for the country and those rethinking the direction of the Democratic party in the wake of November’s election results. Let’s hope this sort of thinking spreads.

There’s no doubt that constitutional lawsuits have secured critical civil-rights victories, with the desegregation cases culminating in Brown v. Board of Education topping the list. But rather than use the judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.

This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs — real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce — are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.

At the same time, the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has — its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes. The judiciary’s diminishing claim to neutrality and independence is exemplified by a recent, historic shift in the Senate’s confirmation process. Where trial-court and appeals-court nominees were once routinely confirmed on voice vote, they are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests, filibusters, and vicious interest-group attacks. It is a warning sign that our judiciary is losing its legitimacy when trial and circuit-court judges are viewed and treated as little more than politicians with robes.

As von Drehle recognizes, too much reliance on constitutional litigation is also bad for the Left itself. The Left’s alliance with trial lawyers and its dependence on constitutional litigation to achieve its social goals risks political atrophy. Liberals may win a victory on gay marriage when preaching to the choir before like-minded judges in Massachusetts. But in failing to reach out and persuade the public generally, they invite exactly the sort of backlash we saw in November when gay marriage was rejected in all eleven states where it was on the ballot. Litigation addiction also invites permanent-minority status for the Democratic party — Democrats have already failed to win a majority of the popular vote in nine out of the last ten presidential elections and pandering to judges rather than voters won’t help change that. Finally, in the greatest of ironies, as Republicans win presidential and Senate elections and thus gain increasing control over the judicial appointment and confirmation process, the level of sympathy liberals pushing constitutional litigation can expect in the courts may wither over time, leaving the Left truly out in the cold.

During the New Deal, liberals recognized that the ballot box and elected branches are generally the appropriate engines of social reform, and liberals used both to spectacular effect — instituting profound social changes that remain deeply ingrained in society today. In the face of great skepticism about the constitutionality of New Deal measures in some corners, a generation of Democratic-appointed judges, from Louis Brandeis to Byron White, argued for judicial restraint and deference to the right of Congress to experiment with economic and social policy. Those voices have been all but forgotten in recent years among liberal activists. It would be a very good thing for all involved — the country, an independent judiciary, and the Left itself — if liberals take a page from David von Drehle and their own judges of the New Deal era, kick their addiction to constitutional litigation, and return to their New Deal roots of trying to win elections rather than lawsuits.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2018 02:30AM by Jennifer.

Private: Judge Gorsuch and the Role of Public Interest Litigation in our Democracy

[www.acslaw.org]

In 2005, shortly before he was appointed to the federal bench, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch wrote a commentary for the National Review criticizing liberals’ reliance on litigation to accomplish social reform. This was not a surprising position for one of Federalist Society’s rising stars to take. Conservatives have long frowned upon public interest lawsuits as a means of pursuing social change.

But (now Judge) Gorsuch’s position was more nuanced than the standard conservative refrain. He argued that liberals could be more successful in achieving social change by pursuing reform through the democratic process. To be sure, there is no shortage of critics on the left (including one cited by Gorsuch) who have made the same claim about the limitations of public interest litigation, including former President Obama. They also have suggested that progressive reform through community organizing and other forms of democratic participation is not only more effective than reform lawsuits, but also more sustainable.

Debates over the efficacy and legitimacy of reform litigation have thrived since the movement to abolish slavery, when lawyers and other advocates disputed whether abolition could be more effectively achieved through lawsuits or legislative repeals. As it turns out, it took a war -- a real one, not a cultural one -- to resolve that divide.

The critique of litigation’s role in social reform raises important points about the nature of our political and legal system. But the notion that democracy is superior to litigation as a means of social reform overlooks something critical. Litigation itself is a deeply embedded way of participating in our constitutional democracy for the politically powerless. It is a manner of expressing the interests of marginalized groups, for whom the prospect of meaningful democratic reform is bleak. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that litigation for social causes is a form of constitutionally protected expression.

It is facile to suggest that prisoners, transgender persons or Muslim Americans should not seek social justice from the federal judiciary because they can effectively mobilize through the democratic process. Indeed, this is one reason the NAACP sought relief through the federal courts rather than politics in its fight to end racial segregation, culminating in the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The recent lower federal court injunctions against President Trump’s Executive Orders on immigration are another example.

The same goes for conservative constituencies whose views place them at the margins of our political system --evangelical Christians, gun owners and even extreme conservative voices whose speech is not palatable to mainstream America. Conservative public interest organizations have increasingly turned to litigation to achieve what they have not been able to accomplish through politics, including religious liberty protections for business owners. In achieving social change where there are structural flaws in our democratic system, litigants and the federal courts contribute to our democracy, not detract from it.

None of this is to say that social reforms ought to be achieved exclusively through litigation. As Scott Cummings and I have written in our book about contemporary public interest lawyering, public interest work has evolved over the past generation to embrace a multivalent approach to social reform, including, but not relying on, litigation, and extending to community organizing, legislative reform and public education. None of these approaches can work alone; all of them can accomplish a lot when employed in a complementary fashion. Through these efforts, public interest litigation advances democracy not as a centerpiece, but as one of a set of participatory tools.

Finally, unlike political institutions, federal courts have rules about which facts count. In an era when fake news pervades our politics, it is hard to imagine an informed debate over extending rights to Syrian refugees or children of undocumented immigrants. As Judge Gorsuch knows from his distinguished service on the federal bench, courts have rules about the reliability of evidence that enhance the possibility of reasoned decisions in ways that simply are not possible in political arenas.

So in Lib World, Trump has more lawsuits filed against him by Democrats than say Obama had during his presidency, so that makes Trump a crap president and Obama a wonderful president.

I'd say it's the other way around - Dems file more frivolous lawsuits against Republican Presidents, so that makes Libs the slimy party ...

(As illustrated by the article below.)

*********

Obama had plenty of lawsuits against him - would have had a ton more because of all Obama's Scandals, but no one was allowed to criticize or say anything against Obama or "You're Racist!"

(Stay tuned for a List of Obama Scandals that were lawsuit worthy - at a later date.)

*********

In 8 Years of Obama, GOP AGs Sued 46 Times. Democrats Already Sued Trump 35 Times.

[www.dailysignal.com]

A coalition of northeastern states suing the Trump administration over the new tax code is only the most recent example of what puts Democrats on track to file a record number of lawsuits against one administration.

Democrats already have set a record for most lawsuits filed against a presidential administration in a single year.

The governors of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey, all Democrats, announced the tax lawsuit Friday. The attorneys general of the three states, also Democrats, will carry out the litigation.

Already, Democratic attorneys general across the country have initiated court challenges to the Trump administration over travel restrictions on some countries, the issue of net neutrality, and environmental policies.

Two of the three states, New York and Connecticut, also sued over new Environmental Protection Agency rules they contend fail to protect their land from pollution.

For most of the past year, the Democratic Attorneys General Association has declared on the front of its website: “Democratic attorneys general are the first line of defense against the new administration.”

What’s Changed

A total of 22 state attorneys general across the country are Democrats, plus the attorney general of the District of Columbia. They initiated 35 multistate lawsuits against Trump administration policies in 2017 alone.

That contrasts with 46 multistate lawsuits brought by Republican state attorneys general against the Obama administration during all eight years, according to research compiled by Paul Nolette, a political science professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

“Attorneys general have always been political animals, since most are elected,” Nolette told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “What has really changed is the perfection of multistate lawsuits [against the incumbent administration] to shape policy.”

During President Barack Obama’s two terms, Republican state attorneys general led litigation challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare and the legality of Obama’s executive actions to advance immigration and environmental goals, among other issues.

“There’s no doubt this could be seen as taking a page out of the Republican AGs’ playbook,” Lizzie Ulmer, communications director for the Democratic Attorneys General Association, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “So the number of legal actions were needed along with the number of times the Trump administration violated the law.”

‘Completely Different’

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican who led some of the lawsuits against the Obama administration, strongly disagrees.

“This is a completely different concept. We were trying to enforce the Constitution; they are trying to do an end run around the Constitution,” Paxton told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

“We challenged the Obama administration on its authority to rewrite the law that Congress hasn’t written,” Paxton said. “This, on the other hand, is suing the Trump administration because they don’t like his actions, and their goal is to get a liberal judge. The travel ban, for instance, was based on a specific statute.”

For its part, the White House was dismissive of the most recent litigation over the tax reform package passed by Congress and signed into law by Trump.

“This is a ridiculous, meritless publicity stunt by governors trying to blame the president for their high taxes and anti-growth policies,” White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a written statement.

Referring to the new tax law by its formal name, Shah added:

They should look to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which at last count has led to more than 3 million workers … receiving bonuses, raises, additional benefits, or new jobs, as a model for how they can make their own states more affordable. Instead, they’re wasting taxpayer money on frivolous litigation.

Going to Court

In a year-end report, the Democratic Attorneys General Association details what it calls its “legal challenges to attacks on Muslims, trans troops, DACA recipients, women’s health, students, the environment, workers, and consumers.”

Ulmer, the association’s communications director, noted that Democratic attorneys general are willing to show bipartisanship.

Earlier this year, after 10 Republican state attorneys general threatened to sue the federal government over the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, all 20 Democratic attorneys general wrote Trump pledging to defend him against his own party if he preserved DACA.

After the Trump administration announced a phase-out of DACA, 16 Democratic attorneys general sued.

Leading figures showcased in the association’s report on litigation are New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Other prominent attorneys general leading the charge include Bob Ferguson of Washington state, Maura Healey of Massachusetts, and Lisa Madigan of Illinois.

“Federalism is a key constitutional value and if a state feels trampled on, the courts are a reasonable place to turn,” Nolette, the Marquette University professor, said. “Increasingly, both Republicans and Democrats use courts not as a federalism device but to advance the agenda of their political party. It’s fairweather federalism. Democrats care if it’s a liberal issue, Republicans care if it’s a conservative issue.”

Under federalism, states have the power to determine many of their own policies while remaining part of, and under the authority of, the larger political unit of the United States government.

The more recent lawsuits seem to be more “aggressive” and “creative,” said C. Boyden Gray, a White House counsel under President George H. W. Bush and U.S. ambassador to the European Union under President George W. Bush. He said he doesn’t think the Democratic lawsuits will last very long.

“The next Democratic president could trigger Republican attorneys general to sue,” Gray told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “The Democratic lawsuits seem very aggressive. Republican lawsuits were over traditional review of agency actions. Democratic lawsuits are more creative and less routine.”

The Numbers

During the two terms of the Reagan administration, 39 multistate lawsuits were filed, with a single year peak of seven lawsuits in 1982, according to Nolette’s tracking.

Under the elder Bush, the number of multistate lawsuits peaked at three in 1991, with a total of eight for the four-year term. President Bill Clinton faced 18 multistate lawsuits during his two terms in office, with a single-year peak of five in 1997.

Under the two terms of the younger Bush, the number of multiyear suits leaped to 44, with a single year peak of 10 in 2003.

Obama saw 46 multistate lawsuits over his eight years, peaking at 13 in 2015.

State attorneys general should be a check on federal power regardless of who the president is, said Nicole Waugh, spokeswoman for Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, chairwoman of the Republican Attorneys General Association.

“Attorney General Rutledge is committed to fighting against an overreaching federal government regardless of who serves as President,” Wough told The Daily Signal in a statement. “The Obama administration took many actions that exceeded the authority of the federal executive branch and infringed on the rights of states. It is incumbent on attorneys general to uphold and defend the rule of law.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2018 01:14AM by Jennifer.