Texas sues Biden over signing federal spending package | The Texas Tribune
Category: News & Politics
Via: evilgenius • last year • 11 commentsBy: Matthew Choi (The Texas Tribune)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The attorney general argued the House unconstitutionally passed its federal spending bill because not enough members were physically present to vote. Both Republicans and Democrats voted by proxy throughout the pandemic.
by Matthew Choi Feb. 15, 202314 hours ago
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/a3865b0f2c9519a3ac4c157f7304a8d8/SCOTUS%20Nov%201%20EL%20TT%2063.jpg)
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks during a press conference outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 1, 2021. Credit:
WASHINGTON — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued President Joe Biden on Wednesday for signing last year's federal government funding package, arguing it was unlawfully passed out of Congress.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Lubbock, Paxton asserts the U.S. House requires a physical majority of its members to pass legislation. But most members of the House voted by proxy on the funding package, which Paxton argues makes it null.
The funding package, which passed out of the U.S. House to Biden's desk last December, funds federal programs for the rest of the fiscal year. Only 201 members were in the chamber for the vote, with most other members having returned to their districts for the holiday recess. Members were able to vote by proxy under rules enacted by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi originally to account for the COVID-19 pandemic.
"At the Founding, 'present' meant '[n]ot absent; face to face; being at hand,'" Paxton wrote in his lawsuit, quoting a contemporaneous dictionary with the definition of "present."
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Members of both parties routinely used proxy voting throughout the pandemic, including for reasons not related to dealing with or avoiding the disease. It was common practice to use proxy voting to deal with in-district affairs, conduct media appearances or meet with constituents. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy eliminated proxy voting after taking the gavel, arguing that it was being abused and not conducive to debate on the floor.
Paxton requested the court rule the omnibus package invalid and unenforceable.
The package includes $1.7 trillion in appropriations, including increased funding for Ukraine, the Defense Department and veterans care. The package had wide bipartisan support in the Senate but faced fierce opposition from Republicans in the House. U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, was particularly vocal in her opposition to the 22% increase in funding for nondiscretionary, nondefense programs.
Since taking control of the lower chamber, House Republicans have been angling to curb federal funding, using the debt ceiling to twist Democrats onto their plans. A handful of Texans have become leading voices in the effort including House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, and Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin.
Paxton also asserts that the package puts undue burden on the state through provisions designed to protect pregnant workers, including state employees. The package requires employers to make "reasonable accommodations" related to pregnancy and childbirth and allows employees to sue if their employers do not comply.
Paxton argues the provision is unnecessary because Texas already offers pregnant state employees reasonable accommodations and that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to open the state up to lawsuits over pregnancy accommodations.
Paxton also took issue with funding for programs to help asylum-seekers wait out their cases in the United States. The program includes assistance for housing and schooling, which Paxton asserts puts extra burden on the state "to spend additional monies on services to illegal aliens they would not otherwise spend."
Tags
Who is online
200 visitors
Two things come to mind: First, does Paxton have standing to sue? Second, since Constitutionally the House Speaker sets the rules, what makes him think he'll win if this goes to court?
I expect Paxton's hand picked Federal judge will rule the way he want's, the defending lawyers will appeal and the 5th Circuit (filled with Trumpy Trump Humpers) will uphold and spout some ridiculousness not germane to the actual case in their ruling and then it will get overturned by the SCOTUS.
Perhaps we'll all get lucky and it will get cut off at the knees before it starts.
AND FOR ANYONE trying to accuse me of partisanship, I agree with Paxton and many that say the rule was abused and not necessary at the time. BUT he, nor anyone outside the House's get to decide on House rules.
Is Paxton still under indictment?
He settled the case with taxpayer money.
LOL, and here he is concerned about the spending bill.
OMG!
A hypocritical Republican!
Hooda thunk it?
LMAO! Yeah, I don't think spending has anything to do with it. If he was at all concerned about spending he'd be working harder on bullshit stuff in Tx first. I'm certain we can all agree his actions are purely partisan.
This will probably end up costing us more than what was passed in the spending bill. Fucking morons.
Brandon declared the pandemic over back in September. So what is Democrat's excuse?
Your sophomoric sobriquet aside - The President has no say over House rules.
Lawfully it doesn't have to be anything more than they want to.
How does this moron still have a job...
I read an article yesterday I believe about some people in DC are trying to get a bill or legislation going to put an end to judge shopping for cases.
That is what they keep doing in Texas, going to certain judges that are partisan and will side with them.
Judge shopping happens in all cases where people have the money and opportunity to do it. It's gaming the system. It's just more apparent when it's political.