Posted on 08/27/2014 4:16:03 PM PDT by Bratch
A shadowy network of wealthy liberal donors bankrolled an operation to pack one of America’s most powerful courts with progressive judges, according to documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.
Now the effort could prevent an Obamacare challenge from reaching the Supreme Court, legal experts say.
The strategy to fill the D.C. Court of Appeals with left-leaning judges was aided by the American Constitution Society, a non-profit group that “promotes a progressive vision of the law.” The ACS is funded in part by the Democracy Alliance, a liberal donor network that funnels millions to a web of dark-money member groups.
During a fundraising presentation at the Democracy Alliance’s meeting in Chicago this spring, the American Constitution Society boasted about meeting its “performance goals,” which included helping to secure the Senate filibuster reform that paved the way for reshaping the D.C. circuit court.
The group said it “advanced filibuster reform” by “highlighting [the] issue in national media” and “successfully leveraging attention to create outcry for confirmation of long-stalled D.C. circuit nominees,” according to its presentation.
The ACS also said it drafted and supplied materials that were used by Senate Democrats to advance the rule change.
Experts argued these activities appeared to cross the line from education to lobbying.
“It bills itself as a tax-exempt educational organization, but obviously the American Constitution Society is engaging in policy-making activities,” said Daniel Epstein, the executive director of Cause of Action and an expert at the conservative Federalist Society. “They created the intellectual arsenal behind filibuster reform.”
“[The Democracy Alliance is] investing a lot of money to get the American Constitution Society to do things that are going to benefit the Democratic Party politically,” he said.
In an historic move, Senate Democrats used the “nuclear option” last year to eliminate filibuster rules that allowed the Republican minority to hold up executive and judicial nominees.
Republicans had been blocking several nominees to the D.C. Court of Appeals who they argued were radical judicial activists. The D.C. circuit court hears some of the most consequential appeals cases on issues ranging from health care reform to federal agency regulations.
Prior to the filibuster reform, the court was evenly divided between liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning judges. After the nuclear option, additional progressive judges were added to the D.C. circuit.
Three of the judges were ACS members, the group noted in its Democracy Alliance presentation.
The organization said it “met [its] goal to deepen ACS’ influence within the legal community” by getting “five members of ACS network confirmed to federal bench, including three of four new D.C. Circuit members.”
In the case Halbig v. Burwell, the D.C. circuit court rejected an Obamacare provision that provided taxpayer-funded subsidies to individuals in states that had set up state health care exchanges. Residents of states that declined to establish exchanges were not eligible for the tax credits.
The D.C. circuit’s decision in Halbig put it at odds with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which had ruled in favor of the federal government. The conflicting rulings made it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would take up the case.
However, the Obama administration is now pushing for the D.C. circuit to rehear the case en banc—meaning that it would go before a panel of all of the court’s active judges. Legal experts predict that such a hearing would favor the Obama administration, because a greater number of progressive judges sit on the bench.
If the D.C. circuit sides with the 4th circuit during a rehearing, it would be less likely the case would make it to the Supreme Court.
“You’d no longer have a circuit split, and therefore you’d have a less of a chance the Supreme Court will review,” said Epstein.
=========================================
REALITY CHECK Could this be a WH/Democrat Ponzi scheme in progress?
While they bash Wall Street publicly, leaders of the Democrats' mega-funder "The Democracy Alliance" have quietly recruited venture capitalists, bankers and hedge fund moguls -- along with union bosses and red-diaper trust fund babies -- to fund their takeover goals. ....$230,000 public school union dues go to the Democrats' "Democracy Alliance."
"The Democracy Alliance" does not itself raise and spend a great deal of money. Rather, being a partner in the Alliance requires one to contribute large amounts to other left-wing groups. The Alliance evaluates left-wing organizations on various criteria, and makes recommendations to its members as to where they should put their money. Currently, the Alliance lists 21 groups in its “Aligned Network”:
<><> America Votes, American Constitution Society, Black Civic Engagement Fund, Brennan Center, Catalyst, Center for American Progress, Center for Community Change, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Common Purpose Project, Fund for the Republic, Latino Engagement Fund, Media Matters for America, New Media Ventures, New Organizing Institute, Organizing For Action, Progressive Majority, Progress Now, State Engagement Initiative, State Voices, Women’s Equality Center and Youth Engagement Fund.<><>
The most interesting of the D/A documents that have come to light is the one that contains D/A’s “investment recommendations” for 2014. Not only does it list the recommended organizations, but it rates each organization in several categories, sets out the group’s budget for 2014, and shows how much of that budget should be contributed by the 100 members of the "Democracy Alliance." One category in which DA rates the organizations is “Collaboration,” as DA believes that all left-wing groups should coordinate their activities for maximum political impact.
Opportunistic pols like Harry Reid have denounced Charles and David Koch, and others, who contribute to conservative causes as “shadowy,” “secretive” people who dare infest politics with “dark money.”
In that context, it is worth noting that most of the groups to which the Alliance and its elite liberal members contribute are 501(c)(4)s that do not disclose their donors.
===============================================
ANALYSIS Buncha sap-happy Dummy/dopes are feeding the Democrats' Democracy Alliance lotsa money---thinking its safe.....going to a "good thing."
That's exactly how Madoff operated. Money-laundering, tax evasion was part of the Madoff mix---helping investors, foundations, and tax-exempts break the law in a seemingly legal way.
=====================================================
Madoff helped himself to the untraceable money in the process.....and got himself in trouble. When he went to jail for 125 years, investigators found Ponzi King Madoff had stashed billions offshore---into a labyrinth of financial entities.
COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACIES GALORE Some $8.9 billion was funneled to Madoff through a dozen so-called feeder funds based in Europe, the Caribbean and Central America......a labyrinth of hedge funds, management companies and service providers that, to unsuspecting outsiders, seemed to compose a formidable system of checks and balances.
But the purpose of this complex financial architecture was just the opposite: the feeder funds provided different modes for directing money to Madoff in order to avoid scrutiny.
Dummycrats apparently took notes.
SCOTUS will still take it even without a circuit split.
The four that voted against the ACA can grant cert and hope for the best with Roberts.
It’s a statutory interpretation case so there’s no risk in taking it.
The next GOP POTUS must take over the SCOTUS and PACK it with enough conservatives to implement an agenda that PERMANENTLY destroys the American Communists ability to ever control any branch of Government again.
Amen.
Ping for later read.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.