Boehner decided what he is suing Obama for: Obamacare is taking too long!

[Zebo]

If the Executive branch has committed illegal acts why hasn't the president been impeached? Some constitutional lawyers have spoken out on this. Congress has the ability to both enact new laws or impeach the president. Those are the remedies the Constitution affords them.

lol the last 5-6 imperial presidents would be impeached if that was case. They are all bought and sold poltical assholes, thats why. Naw instead they do a blowjob.

 

[ivwshane]

Seems to me Obama is delaying the particularly painful aspects of the ACA unlawfully. OFC its political what they are both doing but Obama is wrong in not upholding law.

Law and order is like a cornerstone of good civilization. Check my posts from way back where I rail on criminal Bush.

I just leave this here


“The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes — would bring terrible retribution.”

-Louis Brandeis

It seems like that to you because you are a clueless tool who gets his information from right wing websites.

Btw the employer mandate isn't the most painful part of the ACA.

lol the last 5-6 imperial presidents would be impeached if that was case. They are all bought and sold poltical assholes, thats why. Naw instead they do a blowjob.

Good lord! Exactly how many conspiracies do you believe in?!

 

[ivwshane]

Oh Obama has been sticking a boot up asses all right, but it's pretty much been everyone's ass.

Oh I get it. You are still unemployed and you have to pay for your own insurance now. You are older than 26 and you live at home where your parents still claim you as a dependent, therefor you can't receive welfare.


No wonder you are so bitter!

Or by "sticking a boot up everyone's ass" did you mean some other non quantifiable reason for making such a statement?

 

[Mani]

The guy is trying to help himself by just cementing the Republican congress' reputation as a do-nothing circus act. I see zero hope for the Republican party any time soon if this is their "leadership".

 

[fskimospy]

You're arguing there's no Judicial Review if the Executive branch commits illegal acts. If not Congress whose laws were violated, then who has standing?

No, I'm saying that it is well established in US law that someone needs to be able to show how they were injured in order to sue another person. Being mad that you think the president didn't carry out a law the way you think he should have is not an injury. If anything, congress often has less standing than regular people.

Additionally, congress has many tools at its disposal to make sure the president obeys. It could withhold funding. It could impeach him. Etc, etc. if congress is unwilling to do those things that's up to them to figure out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I want to see Obama on TV announcing that HE is suing house republicans (and their leader Boehner) for failure to do their jobs.
Now THAT is a legit lawsuit.
The people elect house republicans, the people pay house republicans, house republicans collect their paycheck week after week, and yet do nothing.
Yes Obama... sue them on behalf of the taxpayer for failure to serve.
If you were in the military and just sat there refusing to do your job, you'd be severely punished. Probably kicked out and also jailed.
Well... Seems the same rules should apply to loafing house republicans.
Sue them Obama. SUE!!!

Unfortunately Congress is doing precisely what it is authorized to do, which is fight among itself. That's the nature of partisan politics, which I note is something you fully embrace. The essence of the lawsuit is that Obama exceeded his Constitutional authority by making delays that the law didn't allow for. Whether or not that was a good idea is one thing, whether it is permitted is another. There is a legal argument for one but not for yours. Of course it's politically motivated but you Democrats should have done the same thing back in the Bush era when the he decided the Constitution wasn't all that, or do you think that as well?

 

[Newell Steamer]

This is pretty fucking great.

I honestly can't ask for any other situation that would be better than this; he is suing, because things took too long,.. and they took too long, because his people caused the delay.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, I'm saying that it is well established in US law that someone needs to be able to show how they were injured in order to sue another person. Being mad that you think the president didn't carry out a law the way you think he should have is not an injury. If anything, congress often has less standing than regular people.

Additionally, congress has many tools at its disposal to make sure the president obeys. It could withhold funding. It could impeach him. Etc, etc. if congress is unwilling to do those things that's up to them to figure out.

Congress has the right to bring the lawsuit, but courts do not have the obligation to take it.

Seems a reasonable perspective.

An argument has been made that Congress can pass a law allowing it to sue the President but as the piece I linked to says it's no guarantee.

Ironically it was the Republicans who promoted this advancement of Presidential power, as I've said before. I said then that they would regret it one day. I'll give the same advice to the Democrats who will one day face a Republican in office armed with more authority and less control than Bush had.

 

[theeedude]

Congress has the right to bring the lawsuit, but courts do not have the obligation to take it.

Seems a reasonable perspective.

An argument has been made that Congress can pass a law allowing it to sue the President but as the piece I linked to says it's no guarantee.

Ironically it was the Republicans who promoted this advancement of Presidential power, as I've said before. I said then that they would regret it one day. I'll give the same advice to the Democrats who will one day face a Republican in office armed with more authority and less control than Bush had.

You can always sue anyone for anything, and the courts have no obligation to take it. Obama has no obligation to sign a bill that allows Congress to sue him either. If Boehner was an employee of a company that Obama delayed mandate on, then he would be harmed by the delay and have standing to sue. Maybe he should resign his seat and go work at Walmart.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You can always sue anyone for anything, and the courts have no obligation to take it. Obama has no obligation to sign a bill that allows Congress to sue him either. If Boehner was an employee of a company that Obama delayed mandate on, then he would be harmed by the delay and have standing to sue. Maybe he should resign his seat and go work at Walmart.

Boehner really does have a problem. On one hand he needs to satisfy his partisans and go after Obama but on the other the things I believe the most egregious are those which the majority of his party support, so he picks this.

I'd support some action against what I think is a disturbing trend in giving increasing power to one person, however this isn't what I'd choose or how I'd go about it.

 

[fskimospy]

Congress has the right to bring the lawsuit, but courts do not have the obligation to take it.

Seems a reasonable perspective.

An argument has been made that Congress can pass a law allowing it to sue the President but as the piece I linked to says it's no guarantee.

Ironically it was the Republicans who promoted this advancement of Presidential power, as I've said before. I said then that they would regret it one day. I'll give the same advice to the Democrats who will one day face a Republican in office armed with more authority and less control than Bush had.

I'm a big believer in curtailing presidential powers, I've said so many times. This is not the way to do it.

Congress is simply once again showing its craven nature by hoping against hope that the courts will hand them powers they are unwilling to assert for themselves. Making Congress actually assert its will is the solution here, as even if the courts decided to bail them out this time they would just have to go running back again soon.

 

[nehalem256]

You can always sue anyone for anything, and the courts have no obligation to take it. Obama has no obligation to sign a bill that allows Congress to sue him either. If Boehner was an employee of a company that Obama delayed mandate on, then he would be harmed by the delay and have standing to sue. Maybe he should resign his seat and go work at Walmart.

Actually its pretty simple:

(1) The ACA is supposed to reduce health care costs for everyone(including Boehner) right?
(2) The mandate is integral to the working of ACA
(3) Therefore from (1) and (2) we can surmise that Boehner is in fact being harmed by higher healthcare costs than if Obama had not delayed the employer mandate :sneaky:

 

[fskimospy]

Actually its pretty simple:

(1) The ACA is supposed to reduce health care costs for everyone(including Boehner) right?
(2) The mandate is integral to the working of ACA
(3) Therefore from (1) and (2) we can surmise that Boehner is in fact being harmed by higher healthcare costs than if Obama had not delayed the employer mandate :sneaky:

I would suggest learning more about standing here:
http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/19

Needless to say, you're wrong.

Also, even if you weren't wrong about the idea of someone attempting to take a generalized complaint, the employer mandate is not integral to the working of the ACA. (in case you haven't noticed it's working just fine without it) People frequently confuse the individual mandate and the employer mandate.

 

[theeedude]

Actually its pretty simple:

(1) The ACA is supposed to reduce health care costs for everyone(including Boehner) right?
(2) The mandate is integral to the working of ACA
(3) Therefore from (1) and (2) we can surmise that Boehner is in fact being harmed by higher healthcare costs than if Obama had not delayed the employer mandate :sneaky:

(1) - Congress is not covered by the employer mandate. It's specifically exempt by law.

(2) - Nope, most economist say the employer mandate is of secondary importance, as long as the individual mandate is in place. That's why it doesn't even cover small companies. If it was so key, it would cover all employers.

(3) - Well, (1) and (2) are false, but even if they were true, Boehner is not being harmed by either.

 

[Jhhnn]

Boehner sues over the delay in what he's tried desperately to stop entirely, claims righteousness.

And the rubes lap it up.

 

[Jhhnn]

Boehner really does have a problem. On one hand he needs to satisfy his partisans and go after Obama but on the other the things I believe the most egregious are those which the majority of his party support, so he picks this.

I'd support some action against what I think is a disturbing trend in giving increasing power to one person, however this isn't what I'd choose or how I'd go about it.

Boehner, and Repubs in general have a much deeper problem than that- the ideology of failure. Their policy brought 2 fruitless wars of adventure & the most damaging economic catastrophe since 1929. They'll do anything to avoid addressing that, and they'd do the same thing all over again if they could.

When you got nuthin', all you can do is tear down the opposition.

 

[nehalem256]

I would suggest learning more about standing here:
http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/19

Needless to say, you're wrong.

Also, even if you weren't wrong about the idea of someone attempting to take a generalized complaint, the employer mandate is not integral to the working of the ACA. (in case you haven't noticed it's working just fine without it) People frequently confuse the individual mandate and the employer mandate.

Well unless we are talking about abortion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenberg_v._Carhart

Hard to see how a male physician would be harmed by the banning of partial birth abortions.

 

[nehalem256]

(1) - Congress is not covered by the employer mandate. It's specifically exempt by law.

(2) - Nope, most economist say the employer mandate is of secondary importance, as long as the individual mandate is in place. That's why it doesn't even cover small companies. If it was so key, it would cover all employers.

(3) - Well, (1) and (2) are false, but even if they were true, Boehner is not being harmed by either.

(1) is still unquestionably true. If healthcare costs are lowered in general for everyone then everyone(including Boehner) will benefit.

 

[fskimospy]

Well unless we are talking about abortion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenberg_v._Carhart

Hard to see how a male physician would be harmed by the banning of partial birth abortions.

Uhmm, it's not hard at all to see that. He loses money by not being able to perform the procedure anymore.

Did you spend any time at all thinking about this?

 

[nehalem256]

Uhmm, it's not hard at all to see that. He loses money by not being able to perform the procedure anymore.

Did you spend any time at all thinking about this?

First ... an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or imminent,” not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.”

See your own article.

EDIT: It would also seem you are making the same basic argument I made by Boehner. By Obama failing to implement the ACA properly we are all facing higher health care costs. Higher health care costs = harm.

 

[fskimospy]

See your own article.

EDIT: It would also seem you are making the same basic argument I made by Boehner. By Obama failing to implement the ACA properly we are all facing higher health care costs. Higher health care costs = harm.

He was a physician who specialized in partial birth abortions. Banning them would destroy his livelihood. It was not a hypothetical harm.

Additionally, the article explicitly mentions why generalized statements of harm like "society as a whole would have higher health costs" does not confer standing.

You should seriously consider reading more before embarrassing yourself further, dumbass.

 

[K1052]

The judiciary isn't going to touch this with a 10 foot pole. They don't want to be the referee between the legislative and executive branches every time someone gets a bug up their ass...it would never end. I'd bet anything they'll determine that the house has no standing and ample political options at their disposal. Just because some people don't have the courage of their convictions doesn't mean the judges have to do their work for them.

 

[Jaskalas]

The judiciary isn't going to touch this with a 10 foot pole. They don't want to be the referee between the legislative and executive branches every time someone gets a bug up their ass...it would never end. I'd bet anything they'll determine that the house has no standing and ample political options at their disposal. Just because some people don't have the courage of their convictions doesn't mean the judges have to do their work for them.

What good is a law if the Executive branch can ignore and/or break it?

 

[K1052]

What good is a law if the Executive branch can ignore and/or break it?

There is already a mechanism in place for this. Congress has recourse...it just isn't this.

 

[fskimospy]

What good is a law if the Executive branch can ignore and/or break it?

If there is an individual with standing they are free to sue Obama over it. Boehner doesn't have standing. Additionally, Congress has many tools at its disposal to compel the president to do what it wants. It isn't up to the courts to do Congress's job for it.