Boehner Plans To File Suit Against Obama

[Hayabusa Rider]

wait wait wait, you've never heard of another president implement a ridiculous law or policy, something as ridiculous as the "dream act"


what about old nixon and reagon, bush and bush, and the war on drugs/terror??? ROFL ROFL ROFL

In principle I agree with you and Moonbeam and some others. This is decidedly motivated by partisanship. The thing is once something goes before the court both Congress and the Executive branch and their controllers, that is the Republican and Democratic Parties, have less influence. As it sits now virtually nothing has been challenged. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Obama- all have been self constrained which is to say poorly. I've always thought partisanship a weapon used against us. Perhaps this is one rare time where we can use it against our masters.

 

[Jhhnn]

In principle I agree with you and Moonbeam and some others. This is decidedly motivated by partisanship. The thing is once something goes before the court both Congress and the Executive branch and their controllers, that is the Republican and Democratic Parties, have less influence. As it sits now virtually nothing has been challenged. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Obama- all have been self constrained which is to say poorly. I've always thought partisanship a weapon used against us. Perhaps this is one rare time where we can use it against our masters.

That sounds peachy, but you need to pick an honest battle. Immigration isn't it, given Repubs' unwillingness to fund the effort they claim to want & the changes required to have it work. If you think the WoT was great for civil liberties, you're gonna love that.

Push away the raw emotionalism & the phony issues, the contrived crises & scandals to see that Repubs have nothing- nothing constructive, anyway.

We have a generation of twenty-somethings coming up, maybe brighter & better educated than any in the past. What they lack are jobs as traditional vehicles to earning and to contributing. Where are the jobs?

Maybe that's why Repubs need to discuss all the stuff that doesn't mean anything to that cohort- IRS, Benghazi, Voter Fraud & other bullshit issues ad nauseum.

Because they need smokescreens, because they have no answers. No jobs, either.

 

[rudder]

That proves my race theory. If he has the lowest count yet they are suing him, then the only thing left is race.

Yes because it is racist of people to be upset with obama after he amended ACA legislation to delay implementation of parts of the ACA that will be costly and unpopular with democratic voters.... until after an election. Very, very racist.

 

[Matt1970]

Yes because it is racist of people to be upset with obama after he amended ACA legislation to delay implementation of parts of the ACA that will be costly and unpopular with democratic voters.... until after an election. Very, very racist.

When all else fails, play the race card. You hate Obama's lies because he is black.

 

[Vic]

I thought Republicans were opposed to frivolous lawsuits?

 

[theeedude]

To be fair to Republicans, they were equally deranged about Bill Clinton, so it's not necessarily a race thing.

 

[UberNeuman]

When all else fails, play the race card. You hate Obama's lies because he is black.

Red is the new Black...

\racism or blind loyalty to the GOP is placed above the well-being of the nation....
\\take a bit from column A and B.....
\\\how's that immigration reform going?

 

[ivwshane]

How about expanding on a system of extra judicial assassination?

How about expanding the 'surveillance society' crap that his predecessors started?

How about actively working to shut down a 'public option' for medical insurance? (mind you, this one might not be considered "monstrous", simply appalling)

That's 3 for you. And that's not bashing, that's simply pointing pointing to the facts..

The question was what has the right complained about that is legit. They haven't complained about those things.

 

[Zebo]

Gawd. Let us presume that Repubs actually want the executive to stop illegal immigration & turn back the tide, as nativists desire. Where's the budget for that & the legislation to support it in both the executive & judicial branch?

That would obviously be a massive undertaking far beyond the capabilities currently in existence. It would also require long term commitment to changes denying illegals employment in this country.

Or do they just cut the budget & rave about choices they forced on the executive?

Budget is right here. http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY15BIB.pdf Border patrol and ice is over 15b. How does it cost more money to send them back than house and take care of them as we do now? And what do you mean by more laws? We don't need anymore laws there are already laws on the books which have deportation proceedings for everyone. Problem is they are not followed. Thats why agents sued DHS and boehner is suing.

Employer sanctions are on the books too, again with lax enforcement.

I guess i'm not understanding where Obama is "forced" into a choice on this issue. Choices have already been made for him by congress eons ago. Same with health care bill which he keeps changing implementation with his "pen and phone"

All this might be very practical and I support most of it doesn't mean he's not acting above the law.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The question was what has the right complained about that is legit. They haven't complained about those things.

Some have but that's not really my issue, I'm just tired of folks who rant and rail about the 'right' in the same manner as some on the right rant and rail about the 'left'. His words in this forum are pretty much indistinguishable from those used by the the folks he seems to be railing against. Including 'apologizing' for Obama over just about anything that's ever raised against him.

Yes, a lot of the stuff raised is complete idiocy (birth certificate, religion, Benghazi,) but the serious stuff is written off as well. Jhhnn, for example, seems to have no real issues regarding the continuation and expansion of extra judicial assassinations. How does that make him any different from a Bush apologist on, say, the Iraq war?

I remember having high hopes for Obama during his primary run against Clinton. Then it came out that while campaigning on issues like the possibility of renegotiating NAFTA (he had a pretty good 'populist' persona going during the primaries) he was also reassuring the Canadian govt., behind the scenes, that it was all just rhetoric for the masses and not to worry. That pretty much wiped out any respect or trust that I might have had for him.

And pretty much nothing that I've seen since has changed my mind. I feel that he's pretty much been a Wall Street finger puppet who's more worried about his legacy as the '1st Black President' than pretty much anything else.

The U.S. seems to be sinking ever further into blind tribalism. It's a damn shame.

 

[Zebo]

In principle I agree with you and Moonbeam and some others. This is decidedly motivated by partisanship. The thing is once something goes before the court both Congress and the Executive branch and their controllers, that is the Republican and Democratic Parties, have less influence. As it sits now virtually nothing has been challenged. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Obama- all have been self constrained which is to say poorly. I've always thought partisanship a weapon used against us. Perhaps this is one rare time where we can use it against our masters.

OFC it's motivated by partisanship. Doesn't mean it's wrong. About time these Imperial Presidents are reigned in is way I look at it. Wish they would have sued Bush and prosecute him too. But congress and Barack "we need to move on" Obama after dropped the ball there.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2008/07/crimes_and_misdemeanors_2.html
I guess because he wanted to be same kinda law breaker too.

I'll just leave this quote here one more time

“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

 

[Zebo]

Some have but that's not really my issue, I'm just tired of folks who rant and rail about the 'right' in the same manner as some on the right rant and rail about the 'left'. His words in this forum are pretty much indistinguishable from those used by the the folks he seems to be railing against. Including 'apologizing' for Obama over just about anything that's ever raised against him.

Yes, a lot of the stuff raised is complete idiocy (birth certificate, religion, Benghazi,) but the serious stuff is written off as well. Jhhnn, for example, seems to have no real issues regarding the continuation and expansion of extra judicial assassinations. How does that make him any different from a Bush apologist on, say, the Iraq war?

I remember having high hopes for Obama during his primary run against Clinton. Then it came out that while campaigning on issues like the possibility of renegotiating NAFTA (he had a pretty good 'populist' persona going during the primaries) he was also reassuring the Canadian govt., behind the scenes, that it was all just rhetoric for the masses and not to worry. That pretty much wiped out any respect or trust that I might have had for him.

And pretty much nothing that I've seen since has changed my mind. I feel that he's pretty much been a Wall Street finger puppet who's more worried about his legacy as the '1st Black President' than pretty much anything else.

The U.S. seems to be sinking ever further into blind tribalism. It's a damn shame.

Nice post agree 100%.

And with that distillation about this place which I had already been feeling again. Time for a break. More time to fish Enjoy yourselves.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Nice post agree 100%.

And with that distillation about this place which I had already been feeling again. Time for a break. More time to fish Enjoy yourselves.

Enjoy the fishing.

 

[Matt1970]

Red is the new Black...

\racism or blind loyalty to the GOP is placed above the well-being of the nation....
\\take a bit from column A and B.....
\\\how's that immigration reform going?

Doubling down on it doesn't help.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, a lot of the stuff raised is complete idiocy (birth certificate, religion, Benghazi,) but the serious stuff is written off as well. Jhhnn, for example, seems to have no real issues regarding the continuation and expansion of extra judicial assassinations. How does that make him any different from a Bush apologist on, say, the Iraq war?

I object to the drone war in the tribal areas of Pakistan, always have. It creates a lot more enemies than it kills w/ unacceptable collateral casualties as well. It's a disgrace and a continuation/ expansion of Bush/ Neocon policy.

Extra judicial assassinations? I know of 2 with a third apparently being unintended.

Bin Laden, who clearly enjoyed the protection of elements within the Pakistani govt.

Anwar al-Awlaki who was actively engaged in insurrection against the Yemeni govt we were actively supporting. That alone was sufficient justification for his death, regardless of his citizenship. American citizens who served in the Waffen SS received no greater consideration. His son was allegedly not actually a target but rather collateral damage.

Righties opposed neither on legal or moral grounds but simply because Obama.

I object to the mindless attack dog followership of astroturfed & trumped up "scandals" of conspiracy theory. Yeh, that. It's what the Right offers instead of honest effort to create a better America.
Voter Fraud. Birtherism. Fast & Furious. Benghazi. IRS. Immigration. Righties' positions on all of them are purely driven by conspiracy theory.

Their efforts to cut govt spending & employment in the face of the greatest economic catastrophe since 1929 is shameful, callous & stupid. Their justifications & obfuscations wrt their own policy which allowed it to happen are the same. Their defense of low taxes for uber incomes is insane, as is the notion that money has free speech. Their foreign policy views shift like a fart in a windstorm, driven by whatever the right wing noise machine offers up that day.

It's all mindless self righteous drama queen emotionalism all the time, ruthlessly exploited by their leadership. It follows a disease etiology of Denial, like alcoholism.

I'm sick of their shit- their stupid, stupid shit that damages the fabric of our society & serves only the power ambitions of the authoritarian Rich.

 

[Jhhnn]

Budget is right here. http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY15BIB.pdf Border patrol and ice is over 15b. How does it cost more money to send them back than house and take care of them as we do now? And what do you mean by more laws? We don't need anymore laws there are already laws on the books which have deportation proceedings for everyone. Problem is they are not followed. Thats why agents sued DHS and boehner is suing.

Employer sanctions are on the books too, again with lax enforcement.

I guess i'm not understanding where Obama is "forced" into a choice on this issue. Choices have already been made for him by congress eons ago. Same with health care bill which he keeps changing implementation with his "pen and phone"

All this might be very practical and I support most of it doesn't mean he's not acting above the law.

If that budget & employer sanctions were adequate for the goals Repubs claim to support, we'd clearly have different results. We do not, nor are they willing to back up their stated positions with legislative action. It's all doublespeak in support of grey market employment with empty pandering to nativist sentiment. They're having it both ways.

And why not? Illegals are the right wing ideal of the perfect employees- illegals have no rights & they know it. They perform well at rock bottom wages. They have no upward mobility in the organization, meaning they're no threat to the positions held by their managers. They're utterly disposable & they'll never organize. If they were legal, it'd be considerably different.

If you think that "conservative" business interests want to put an end to that, you're out of your mind.

 

[boomerang]

All the President's Enablers

Congressional Democrats should be thankful to Boehner for his attempt to reacquire their power. Although I would imagine that the slackers enjoy not having to actually make any decisions that could jeopardize their reelection.

 

[Bitek]

Can we take the relative silence by the wingnuts an admission that this will blow up in the face of the GOP big time?

 

[etrigan420]

Can we take the relative silence by the wingnuts an admission that this will blow up in the face of the GOP big time?

That's never stopped them before...

 

[Fern]

Can we take the relative silence by the wingnuts an admission that this will blow up in the face of the GOP big time?

I think that's looking less clear after the recent 9-0 SCOTUS case ruling against Obama.

My understanding has long been that the courts are reluctant to step into such squabbles, but, again, the recent unanimous SCOTUS case indicates we may see another exception.

Also, from I've read it is a bipartisan committee that will be drafting the lawsuit assuming the legislation passes next month.

Fern

 

[Engineer]

I thought Republicans were opposed to frivolous lawsuits?

LOL...obviously not.

 

[Fern]

Not only does Boehner not know what he's suing Obama over, it's likely that he lacks the ability to sue him anyway due to lack of standing.

Boehner has stated many examples of what they intend to sue over. So, he knows. Additionally, drafting the suit is to be left up to a bipartisan committee so I don't see how Boehner could speak to the exact details. And given he's not a lawyer I think it a good idea the suit itself is left up to others and he not attempt to get into details.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I think that's looking less clear after the recent 9-0 SCOTUS case ruling against Obama.

My understanding has long been that the courts are reluctant to step into such squabbles, but, again, the recent unanimous SCOTUS case indicates we may see another exception.

Also, from I've read it is a bipartisan committee that will be drafting the lawsuit assuming the legislation passes next month.

Fern

How does Boehner have standing to sue? He has to be able to show he had been personally injured in some way. In short: he doesn't.

This is just an attempt by the House leadership to appease the crazies who want impeachment while not doing anything so catastrophic for the GOP as actually impeaching Obama. They file their lawsuit, it sits in the courts for awhile before being dismissed, the crazies are mollified, and life goes on.

 

[Bitek]

I think that's looking less clear after the recent 9-0 SCOTUS case ruling against Obama.

My understanding has long been that the courts are reluctant to step into such squabbles, but, again, the recent unanimous SCOTUS case indicates we may see another exception.

Also, from I've read it is a bipartisan committee that will be drafting the lawsuit assuming the legislation passes next month.

Fern

That suit and the logic of its decision had nothing to do with this. The deciding opinion was the executive branch cannot reinterpret the legislature's own rules contrary to what the legis say they mean to enforce its own agenda.

If anything that bodes ill for this lawsuit. Why would the judiciary want to jump in between a pissing match between the exec and legis? Esp when the motivations and logic is dubious at best..

 

[Fern]

How does Boehner have standing to sue?
-snip-

I intended to address the issue of "standing" but forgot. Basically was going to say I have no comment on it because I don't understand it well enough and the lawyers I've heard discussing the suit on TV haven't touched on it. Their doubts about the suit rested on other concerns.

Fern