06-21-2018 08:27:13 AM -0700
06-20-2018 09:04:40 AM -0700
06-20-2018 06:42:47 AM -0700
06-19-2018 10:24:27 PM -0700
06-19-2018 07:02:46 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

DOJ Lawyers Waste Your Money Over Fonts and 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.