With unemployment chronically exceeding 8% under President Obama and with explosive federal deficits, you would think Justice Department lawyers would have more important things to worry about than font size and enrichment programs on Obamacare. But you’d be wrong.
The Voting Section is currently fighting South Carolina over implementation of voter ID — a policy supported by more than eighty percent of Americans. Bradley Heard, one of the lawyers for the DOJ, has found the time to bicker about 12-point font, even filing a brief in federal court about it. (Don’t miss PJ Media’s profile of Heard, including his nasty law firm breakup, here in the ”Every Single One” series.)
“I’m pretty sure this specific topic was a point of discussion among all counsel prior to filing our respective briefs, and each party appeared to recognize the continuing 13-point font requirement,” Heard wrote in the email. “Thus, we were surprised to receive the State’s 12-point font brief. . . . Heard asked South Carolina’s lawyers to withdraw their court papers and re-file a document with the correct size font. A lawyer for South Carolina, H. Christopher Bartolomucci, responded to Heard at ten minutes before 9 p.m. on September 8 with this: “We do not intend to revise our filing unless of course the Court indicates we should.” Bartolomucci said a revised scheduling order, issued in July, “does not require 13-point font.”
At 10:51 p.m. that day, Heard filed an emergency motion in Washington’s federal trial court urging the panel judges to strike South Carolina’s court brief.
When they aren’t busy wasting your tax dollars litigating over things that don’t matter, they are spending time on things which have noting to do with their jobs. I received an email from a DOJ Civil Rights Division lawyer advertising an enrichment program being taught at the DOJ Voting Section about Obamacare.
Leftist law professors are conducting a seminar for the Voting Section to teach the high paid Voting Section lawyers this:
Surmounting Challenges to Spending Clause Claims: Post-NFIB v. Sebelius
Professor Alan Morrison, George Washington University Law School
Professor Samuel Bagenstos, University of Michigan Law School
Simon Lazarus & Rochelle Bobroff, Constitutional Accountability Center [Read the IRS 990's of this "progressive" organization here.]
The webinar will identify new challenges to litigating claims under Spending Clause statutes that NFIB v. Sebelius will likely trigger. The panelists will provide suggestions for countering these obstacles. The webinar will address Medicaid, the Rehabilitation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and Title IX.
Notice the program has nothing to do with voting. Notice also the unbalanced panel. One of the panelists is Sam Bagenstos, the same lawyer a federal court eviscerated for a shoddy brief, likening it to the work a person without a lawyer would produce. Like so much in the Obama administration, the program is dedicated to circumventing the Constitution, not protecting it. The cause of the “obstacles” the panel refers to is the recent Supreme Court ruling which found parts of Obamacare unconstitutional. So on September 11, you will have highly paid DOJ lawyers attending a seminar which has nothing to do with their area of practice, where they will learn how to further erode the edges of the Constitution.
Perhaps they can invite Greg Katsas or some of the lawyers who opposed Obamacare to describe how portions of the law were found to be unconstitutional, but that wouldn’t fit the ideological agenda at DOJ.