Yet more examples of the Obama administration's lawless behavior

The Obama administration has an attitude where they do whatever they want regardless of the law and simply force people to have to bring lawsuits against them.  It is an interesting strategy.  Sometimes they win simply because their opponents can't afford the legal costs to challenge them.  But the Obama administration can use taxpayer dollars to pay for their legal costs.  It is hard not to call this behavior "lawless."  From a piece in USA Today:
When a president pursues policies that require such expansive federal power that he can't get a single justice to agree, something is probably amiss. . . . 
In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, a decision issued in June, the justices unanimously rejected the Obama administration's argument that raisin farmers did not have the right to go to court to contest the seizure of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of raisins. The Fifth Amendment states that the government must pay "just compensation" whenever the government takes private property for "public use." But the administration claimed that farmers could not even raise the takings issue in court without first enduring lengthy delays and paying a $483,000 fine.  
Horne was the administration's third unanimous defeat in a property rights case in 18 months. . . .   
In Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, it unsuccessfully argued that the Fifth Amendment doesn't require compensation when the federal government repeatedly and deliberately floods property owners' land. Even liberal justices normally skeptical of property rights claims, including one of President Obama's appointees, found these arguments too much to swallow.   
The Obama administration has also suffered unanimous defeats in several other important cases.   
Last year, the justices rejected the administration's position that the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment does not apply to churches' decisons to hire and fire employees with religious duties, such as teaching theology. Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagan called the administration's position "amazing."   
In United States v. Jones, another 2012 case, the justices unanimously rejected the administration's claim that the Fourth Amendment does not restrict the government's authority to attach a GPS tracking device to a car. . . .



Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

This particular example of doing wrong, and then forcing an individual or group to bring suit happens on the local, and State level, and not just at the Federal level.

As far as being an "interesting strategy", look above. This is not a unique case(s), and it's long been an effective tool to subvert the rules.

7/24/2013 11:08 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home