losers
  • WINGNUT CONSIDERS CALLING MORE ATTENTION TO HIMSELF FOR BULK BOOK SALES: “Conservative talk-radio host and attorney Mark Levin said he plans to file an immediate lawsuit if House Democratic leaders try to utilize a little-known maneuver under House rules to pass the health-care bill without actually having to vote on it.” Ha ha, if they even TRY to utilize it, or think about trying, he’ll sue ‘em like hot chickens. Who will counter-sue Mark Levin, for fun? “ShortsShortsShorts”? [The Corner]
Related

 
Related video

About the author

Jim Newell is Wonkette's beloved Capitol Hill Typing Demon. He joined Wonkette.com in 2007, left for some other dumb job in 2010, and proudly returned in 2012 as our "Senior Editor at Large." He lives in Washington and also writes for things such as The Guardian, the Manchester paper of liberals.

View all articles by Jim Newell

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

33 comments

  1. Tommmcatt

    Oh it is so clever to sue the US Government what with its limited funds and poor access to lawyers and all. This will really slow things up, as I’m sure almost any random county or state court will immediately rule that they have standing in a lawsuit against the US Congress.

    Or perhaps it is lame-ass grandstanding, one of the two.

  2. the problem child

    Won’t the health care bill include tort reform that would prevent this kind of frivolous litigious behavior?

  3. rafflesinc

    Hmm. What would be the opposite of conservatives running to court to challenge legislation passed by a Democratic House and Democratic and signed by a Democratic President?

    Why, that would be liberals (Pelosi and Slaughter, no less!, along with Waxman) running to court to challenge legislation passed by a Republican House and Republican Senate and signed by a Republican President! To top it off, they were rebuffed by a three judge panel of a Carter appointee and two Clinton appointees!

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/16/guess-who-opposed-the-slaughter-rule-in-2005/
    http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/06-5232a.pdf

  4. bureaucrap

    He and Oily Taint could form a law firm “specializing in frivolous, nonmeritorious, and abusive lawsuits.” If you have a screw loose, you have a lawyer!

  5. the problem child

    [re=532461]Come here a minute[/re]: [re=532465]Tommmcatt[/re]: Standing. Good to see you in solidarity on this one.

  6. freakishlystrong

    This could be the equivalent of the Demoncraps pulling the ole’ “look over there, something shiny!”, to throw the shrill, reactionary wingnuts off their trail. Then they can just ram it down our throats by up or down vote.

  7. grevillea

    If we could get Oily Taintz riled up about this man muscling in on her patch of crazy, maybe she would oppose him. Which would probably collapse the space-time fabric in a massive logic vortex or something.

  8. Tommmcatt

    [re=532476]rafflesinc[/re]:

    Good thing it was settled then! Guess they were proven totally wrong by that very judgement! On with the Slaughter!

  9. JMP

    The lawsuit would be doomed to failure, but it should accomplish its main goal: to get people to pay attention to Mark Levin.

  10. Extemporanus

    [re=532477]bureaucrap[/re]: “If your law firm ain’t Taint Levin, then it’s already left!”

  11. Joshua Norton

    Sooooo. If it’s ruled illegal then EVERY law that was ever passed using this method is null and void. Which would include 9/10th of what the repiggies did during their reign of terror.

    I say go for it!! Spend lots of your money doing it. Yeah, boy….

  12. Extemporanus

    [re=532467]Extemporanus[/re]: Sorry to mock the typoe, Jim.

    I thought it was ye olde Englifh reference in honor of St. Noonan’s Daye.

  13. FMA

    [re=532513]grendel[/re]: OK,he named his dogs Pepsi and Sprite. What the fuck’s the cat’s name, Mountain Dew?

  14. Lionel Hutz Esq.

    Just remember, Levin only real job was as the lead masturbator in Ed Meese’s office. It is in honor of this that he screams all of the time at people.

  15. Franklin Pierce & Pierce

    Oh, snap! Wingnuts HATE the reconciliation tactic.

    Remember the outrage all the wingnuts felt in Bush’s first term, when the Republican used reconciliation to push through a massive tax cut that created our current deficit? And Cheney got to cast the deciding vote?

  16. S.Luggo

    Link to the proposed federal complaint, Landmark Legal Foundation and Levin v. Obama (and various other satan worshippers):
    http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark%20Complaint.pdf
    Quel amusant. It sites Levin, Eric Cantor and a WSJ article by a retired judge as authority. (See Para. 27). The one case it does site concerns the now nullified line-item veto act.

    The purpose of the complaint is to prevent the Health Care Bill from reaching our socialist ruler’s desk for signature after those scoundrels in the House pass the Reconcilliation Bill.

    The Philadelphia law firm which wrote the complaint, while no doubt good at what it was does, focuses on Aerospace & Air Disaster suits, Vehicle Litigation, Drug Litigation, Elevator & Escalator Litigation, Real Estate Litigation, etc.

    I suggest that Mr. Levin call in Orly to act as co-counsel.

  17. Lascauxcaveman

    [re=532476]rafflesinc[/re]: No, that would be exactly the same thing as that other thing, because we rely on talk radio hosts to make laws in this country. It’s in the Constimatution. Look it up.

  18. the problem child

    [re=532667]S.Luggo[/re]: Odd. I could have sworn there was a legal test for an injunction, which test should probably be cited in your complaint, if the purpose of the litigation is anything but scaremongering…

  19. S.Luggo

    [re=532730]the problem child[/re]: To get an injunction (e.g. to stop our Kenyan overlord Barry from signing the communist/fascist nanny-state Health Care bill) one has to claim that you can’t sue for money damages to reverse the harm (in Levin’s complaint, harm means the payment of more taxes). Gawd, I know this is sooooooo boring.

    About the above, Levin’s complaint fucks itself in the ass. See the end of the 2nd sentence in Para. 26 (once the HRA is signed, taxpayers sue to get their increased taxes back.)

    Other defects in the Levin complaint: lack of standing, no case and controversy, does not pass the smell test.

    Also, wrong plaintiffs are sougtht to be enjoined. Because I don’t to perpetuate Levin’s crap, I say who should have been sued. Hint: Rhymes with, “The Bope”, “The Mew York Yacht Club”, “The Porld Bank”, etc.

Comments are closed.