Boehner Plans To File Suit Against Obama

[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..

I'm somewhat familiar with the recent decision. Basically it can be reasonably described as the exec branch usurping legislative branch power. (The power to determine when it is in recess and when it isn't.)

The making of laws is a power of the Legislative branch. I think the legislative branch complaint here would also be usurpation of their power.

The court's willingness to intervene in the "pissing match" about recess appointments may be an indication of their willingness to step in here too. Even Constitutional law scholars on the Left have been decrying recent actions of Obama. Perhaps SCOTUS will feel this is a good time to step in and "sharpen the lines" of exec power versus legislative power.

Fern

 

[Bitek]

The recess appt case wasn't brought by the legis., it was from a litigant who was specifically impacted by a NLRB ruling, and argued the board's ruling was invalid as the acting head was never confirmed by congress thus did not have authority.

The litigant had standing. The exec argued that the congress was really in recess during the appt, and they could dismiss the Congresses' assertion that they consider a 30 sec session as a valid session, because it was too short. Basically it was bullshit.
Scotus said basically, it may be bullshit, but it's their bullshit and it's not you're call to say it is or isn't.

So what is the specific greavence Boner is filing against?

 

[fskimospy]

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

There's no way for him to establish standing that I know of.

 

[Jhhnn]

There's no way for him to establish standing that I know of.

Correct. He's posturing for the rubes.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Oh boy,... op-ed on CNN.

Now we know he is serious.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/06/opinion/boehner-obama-lawsuit/index.html

RUN BARRY!! RUN!!

 

[kage69]

I think Sally Kohn put it rather well, even if she went a little too easy on him IMO.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/06/opinion/kohn-john-boehner-nonsense/index.html?hpt=po_t1


That man is a joke, and a bad one at that. I think he really believes his constituents are morons with no concept of time and history. Add another PR stunt to the pile, the GOTP has little else to do apparently.

"If you're looking for an example of stretching that authority to the point of breaking it, perhaps you shouldn't scrutinize a former Constitutional law professor but instead his predecessors. "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority," Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2005. "The president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired."

Cheney, for instance, described the War Powers Act -- in which a president must gain the approval of Congress before launching armed conflict -- as an unconstitutional "infringement on the authority of the presidency." In both number and scope, President Obama's use of executive actions simply pales against this and other actions one could compare."



Someone point out the pubs who were lambasting Cheney/Bush back then over this issue, and voila, there's the group you can listen to with a straight face.

 

[Fern]

I think Sally Kohn put it rather well, even if she went a little too easy on him IMO.

Sally Kohn? Bwuhaha. Why pick such a hack to quote?

But I'll indulge her with more respect than she deserves by addressing some of her comments.

That man is a joke, and a bad one at that. I think he really believes his constituents are morons with no concept of time and history. Add another PR stunt to the pile, the GOTP has little else to do apparently.

Sheesh, she writes like some of the more rabid Lefty posters here.

"If you're looking for an example of stretching that authority to the point of breaking it, perhaps you shouldn't scrutinize a former Constitutional law professor but instead his predecessors. "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority," Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2005. "The president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired."

Notice the actual words (not like they're important or anything, huh?)

Nothing really wrong with anyone claiming their constitutional powers shouldn't be impaired.

The question wrt Obama is if he is stepping outside his constitutional powers. These are different issues. Too bad Sally can't figure it out.

Cheney, for instance, described the War Powers Act -- in which a president must gain the approval of Congress before launching armed conflict -- as an unconstitutional "infringement on the authority of the presidency."

Not exactly sure what Cheney was saying since his remark is clearly out-of-context. Not sure what Sally is trying is trying to say, but taking her words at face value she is wrong in her assessment of War Powers Act and the Constitution. The President can launch military forces without congressional approval. Sure the President is somewhat limited by the Constitution. E.g., the President can defend against an imminent threat without Congress' approval. That is, in fact, his constitutional obligation. I.e., her blanket statement is erroneous.

In both number and scope, President Obama's use of executive actions simply pales against this and other actions one could compare."

The number of executive actions is irrelevant no matter how many times the Left struggles to claim it so.

The question is scope and that's what the lawsuit would be about. She's welcome to her opinion about that but others disagree:

Jonathan Turley, the lefty constitutional law professor is one who disagrees with her:

Americans are in danger of losing their liberties as the country shifts to an "imperial presidency," with power concentrated in the executive branch, constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said on Fox News.

Turley, who teaches at George Washington University, agrees with much of President Barack Obama's political positions, but fears Obama is moving the United States toward a system in which the president's power is unchecked by Congress and the courts.

Turley said Obama's failure to inform Congress he was releasing five Taliban prisoners from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay over the weekend is the latest example of his ignoring the law.

"This has become something of a mantra from this administration that the president has decided he will not comply with federal law," Turley said Tuesday on Fox News Channel's "Hannity."

"What's emerging is an imperial presidency, an über-presidency as I've called it, where the president can act unilaterally," Turley said. Turley was among several witnesses testifying before the House Judiciary Committee in February, in which he warned of a constitutional crisis if Congress fails to maintain its power.

America's system of government has been stable because there are limited and shared powers, Turley said. But if one branch emerges dominant, the system will begin to shut down.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Jonathan-Turley-Obama-presidency-power/2014/06/04/id/575014/

Even Dem lawmakers have expressed concern:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said he was not concerned that Obama was circumventing Congress so he would delay his signature health care law, but had real concerns about presidential overreach on war powers and surveillance issues. "Everything we're talking about today is laughable in the face of these problems," Nadler said.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/12/legal-experts-criticize-obamas-executive-actions.html

Trying to pass this off as a phony issue and nothing more than a partisan "stunt" is unsupportable and ridiculous.

I don't know if a lawsuit is the proper recourse, but no one seems to have a better idea.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

Boehner has no standing, but of course it won't stop the 5 Republican clerics on SCOTUS from creating it out of thin air, like they did corporate religions.

 

[fskimospy]

Trying to pass this off as a phony issue and nothing more than a partisan "stunt" is unsupportable and ridiculous.

I don't know if a lawsuit is the proper recourse, but no one seems to have a better idea.

Fern

It's definitely a partisan stunt. Any assertion that it isn't is unsupportable and ridiculous.

Boehner has many options available to him, he's just unwilling to exercise them because he knows he will lose. This lawsuit is deliberately designed to go nowhere, Boehner has no standing to pursue the suit, and even if he did judgment itself would likely take longer than Obama has in office. Pointless political theatrics that only serve to placate the Republican base without actually attempting to address any of the issues raised.

 

[Fern]

It's not unsurprising to see you proclaim absolute confidence, even for a SCOTUS case. But in reality the issue of standing here is an open question as the courts have never said a congressional chamber may not sue the president for usurping legislative powers. (And the recent ruling against Obama suggests they are open to it.)

Furthermore, given the rules developed under the question of standing it's premature to develop a strong opinion in the absence of knowledge about the specific complaints in the expected suit.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

It's not unsurprising to see you proclaim absolute confidence, even for a SCOTUS case. But in reality the issue of standing here is an open question as the courts have never said a congressional chamber may not sue the president for usurping legislative powers. (And the recent ruling against Obama suggests they are open to it.)

I don't see how, as the recent case did not involve Congress suing the president. If you mean that because the courts have ruled a president has overstepped his authority that they are open to congressional lawsuits, I would just find that to be a non-sequitur.

As for absolute confidence, of course I don't have that. I do find the prospect to be very, very unlikely.

Furthermore, given the rules developed under the question of standing it's premature to develop a strong opinion in the absence of knowledge about the specific complaints in the expected suit.

Fern

While of course you would need to know the specific complaints, John Boehner personally needs to show how he has been individually harmed by an executive order issued by Obama. I wish him luck.

Even if he were somehow able to establish standing, the courts would probably toss this as a 'political question' anyway. Congress has the power to stop the president from usurping their powers any time they want. If Congress declines to use that power, they shouldn't expect the courts to do it for them.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
While of course you would need to know the specific complaints, John Boehner personally needs to show how he has been individually harmed by an executive order issued by Obama. I wish him luck.

That's not the only way to obtain standing.

Fern

 

[CountZero]

I am not a huge fan of executive orders. Didn't like them under Bush and I'm not any happier with them under Obama. If they manage to get a suit that greatly curtails the use of executive orders I'd be happy for it since they mostly serve as a means to subvert congress in ways both big and small.

That being said I can't completely fault Obama for trying to use them given that the house is essentially a broken chamber at the moment. Gerrymandering has reached an apex of tightly controlled districts. Add on to that a primary system that greatly favors the most extreme elements of a party and you get a house that is increasingly hyper partisan. Plus many individual reps are punished for even attempting to reach a reasonable middle ground when their constituents are so blindly partisan that they view the other party not as a group with ideological differences but an actual enemy of the state level threat.

Mix this in with strong adherence to the Hastert Rule (only putting a bill up for vote if the majority of the majority supports it) and you have a house that votes not as representatives of the population of the US as a whole but is instead a winner takes all partisan mouthpiece less concerned with governing the country than it's own self interest. This is why the senate gets bipartisan bills passed but they die in the house. This is why the house passes bills that have no hope of bipartisan support. It is not a House of Representatives it is a House of the Majority Party and that was not the original intent.

At this point the house basically serves to rubber stamp if their guy is in the WH or do nothing useful if their guy isn't. When the pendulum swings back I fully expect the dems to do the same thing.

TL;DR I'd like to see executive orders reigned in and I'd like to see the rules governing the house restrict or remove the ability to adhere to the Hastert rule.

 

[alzan]

Boehner "Me hate-um Obama, hate-um. Me sue him"
Tea partiers and GOP "Yay"

 

[Fern]

I am not a huge fan of executive orders. Didn't like them under Bush and I'm not any happier with them under Obama. If they manage to get a suit that greatly curtails the use of executive orders I'd be happy for it since they mostly serve as a means to subvert congress in ways both big and small.

That being said I can't completely fault Obama for trying to use them given that the house is essentially a broken chamber at the moment. Gerrymandering has reached an apex of tightly controlled districts. Add on to that a primary system that greatly favors the most extreme elements of a party and you get a house that is increasingly hyper partisan. Plus many individual reps are punished for even attempting to reach a reasonable middle ground when their constituents are so blindly partisan that they view the other party not as a group with ideological differences but an actual enemy of the state level threat.

Mix this in with strong adherence to the Hastert Rule (only putting a bill up for vote if the majority of the majority supports it) and you have a house that votes not as representatives of the population of the US as a whole but is instead a winner takes all partisan mouthpiece less concerned with governing the country than it's own self interest. This is why the senate gets bipartisan bills passed but they die in the house. This is why the house passes bills that have no hope of bipartisan support. It is not a House of Representatives it is a House of the Majority Party and that was not the original intent.

At this point the house basically serves to rubber stamp if their guy is in the WH or do nothing useful if their guy isn't. When the pendulum swings back I fully expect the dems to do the same thing.

TL;DR I'd like to see executive orders reigned in and I'd like to see the rules governing the house restrict or remove the ability to adhere to the Hastert rule.

Yeah, it's only the Repubs who are refusing to vote on bills.

If you believe that click here: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/83057-290-bills

Reid is a one man filibuster.

Otherwise Presidential orders have good and necessary purpose; it's their abuse that is the problem.

Fern

 

[CountZero]

Yeah, it's only the Repubs who are refusing to vote on bills.

If you believe that click here: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/83057-290-bills

Reid is a one man filibuster.

Otherwise Presidential orders have good and necessary purpose; it's their abuse that is the problem.

Fern

Do you have a list of bills which had broad bipartisan support? I'm not interested in partisan bills with no hope to pass. I'm interested (going both ways) in bills that would likely pass with a mix of majority and minority party.

Plus I don't care what party is doing it, this isn't a Republican issue so much as it is a problem that has manifested itself with the current Republican majority. If the senate isn't putting bills up for a vote because they are following a majority of the majority rule then it is wrong as well.

I also tend to worry less about the senate as it tends to be more moderate due to the fact that they are elected statewide not just in some tightly constrained district. There are obviously exceptions like CA or TX. None the less if they are applying a majority of the majority rule I don't support that, I believe it subverts the entire purpose of congress.

Basically I want to see moderate solutions and compromises be the rule not the exception. I know it is a dream that is unlikely to happen.

 

[MongGrel]

I think Sally Kohn put it rather well, even if she went a little too easy on him IMO.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/06/opinion/kohn-john-boehner-nonsense/index.html?hpt=po_t1


That man is a joke, and a bad one at that. I think he really believes his constituents are morons with no concept of time and history. Add another PR stunt to the pile, the GOP has little else to do apparently.

"If you're looking for an example of stretching that authority to the point of breaking it, perhaps you shouldn't scrutinize a former Constitutional law professor but instead his predecessors. "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority," Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2005. "The president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired."

Cheney, for instance, described the War Powers Act -- in which a president must gain the approval of Congress before launching armed conflict -- as an unconstitutional "infringement on the authority of the presidency." In both number and scope, President Obama's use of executive actions simply pales against this and other actions one could compare."



Someone point out the pubs who were lambasting Cheney/Bush back then over this issue, and voila, there's the group you can listen to with a straight face.

This, in a nutshell more or less as far as I'm concerned.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[boomerang]

Reid is a one man filibuster.

And Obama is A-OK with it. 372 bills out of the House and not a single solitary one has gone anywhere. What's happening is as plain as it could be. The Obama presidency is a my way or the highway presidency. He will work with anyone to solve the problems of the American people - as long as they are his solutions. Harry Reid is the gatekeeper.

40 jobs related bills stuck in the Senate.
http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

 

[randomrogue]

To Obama's defense the right wing of the Republican party is fundamentalist and completely crazy and if I was him I wouldn't acknowledge their presence. America needs to vote for non-crazy people and the Republican party needs to get rid of their right wing extremists.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yeah, it's only the Repubs who are refusing to vote on bills.

If you believe that click here: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/83057-290-bills

Reid is a one man filibuster.

Otherwise Presidential orders have good and necessary purpose; it's their abuse that is the problem.

Fern

2010? Really?

And the first one on the list:

The House of Representatives approved the bill in January 2009.[4] The United States Senate failed to move the bill forward in November 2010.[5] President Barack Obama said in March 2011 that he will continue to fight for the goals in the Paycheck Fairness Act.[6] The bill was reintroduced in both houses of Congress in April 2011.[7]

The 2010 bill had no Republican Party co-sponsors, though a group of four Republican senators had supported an earlier bill to address gender-based wage discrimination, including Susan Collins, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Lisa Murkowski, and Olympia Snowe.[8]

On June 5, 2012, the bill fell short of the 60 votes necessary to override a filibuster and did not make it to the Senate floor for debate. The vote went along party lines, excluding a vote against by Democrat Harry Reid. (Senator Reid changes his vote as a procedural maneuver, which left Democrats the option to call up the bill again at a later time.)[9]

On April 9, 2014, in another straight-party-line vote, the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 2199; 113th Congress) was again blocked by a Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Once again, Senator Reid changed his vote from support to oppose, as a tactical maneuver to keep the bill alive.

The 2010 Senate version of the bill had the support of the Obama administration and that of Democrats in the Senate. The American Civil Liberties Union supported S.182, citing the 2008 data from the United States Census Bureau that women's median annual earnings were 77.5% of the male median, African-American women's median annual earnings were 64% of the white male median, and Hispanic women's median annual earnings were 54% of the white male median.[10] The American Association of University Women also supported the bill, citing the organization's 2007 research report, Behind the Pay Gap, which showed that women earn less than their male colleagues just one year out of college. The pay gap has widened 10 years after graduation.[11]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Fairness_Act#Legislative_history

 

[Jhhnn]

At this point the house basically serves to rubber stamp if their guy is in the WH or do nothing useful if their guy isn't. When the pendulum swings back I fully expect the dems to do the same thing.

I'll take false equivalency & strawman projection for $1000, Alex.

From 2010 forward, congressional repubs have been the most obstructional extortionists in History.

 

[CountZero]

I'll take false equivalency & strawman projection for $1000, Alex.

From 2010 forward, congressional repubs have been the most obstructional extortionists in History.

Sorry but after the way the Reps have behaved you honestly believe that if Rep took the WH and Dems took the house they wouldn't now do the exact same thing?

You have far more faith in politicians than I do.

 

[randomrogue]

Do I believe that the Democrats would run a complete obstructionist agenda? No. Do I think both parties are garbage? Yes.

What we're seeing right now is extremism and normal republicans not standing up and telling the tea party to drop dead. There is no such crazy faction in the democratic party.

The Republican party needs to split up. This country could do with more parties.

 

[VRAMdemon]

It's definitely a partisan stunt. Any assertion that it isn't is unsupportable and ridiculous.

Boehner has many options available to him, he's just unwilling to exercise them because he knows he will lose. This lawsuit is deliberately designed to go nowhere, Boehner has no standing to pursue the suit, and even if he did judgment itself would likely take longer than Obama has in office. Pointless political theatrics that only serve to placate the Republican base without actually attempting to address any of the issues raised.

This!...Years of 'Obama is a tyrant' rhetoric have kept the base excited and the donations flowing, but Republican leadership understands they have no case, no way to win, and that the reaction from the rest of the country would be strongly negative. The lawsuit against Obama is essentially a compromise on the impeachment issue. Once again Boehner has to give the base something and this is what he's come up with.

Realistically, things are in a good place for them. They have an easy enemy, and have built an ever-giving stream of faux scandals that sell books and get ratings. The base keeps fired up, nobody has to actually show the leadership (or brainpower) that one needs to address real issues, and a stable of media personalities has an easy way to make money off half-assed screeds.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sorry but after the way the Reps have behaved you honestly believe that if Rep took the WH and Dems took the house they wouldn't now do the exact same thing?

You have far more faith in politicians than I do.

Dems didn't act that way when the held Congress in the 2007-2009 time frame after 4 years of Repub ham fisted rule & with a Repub Prez.

Dems' idea of govt is not reducing it to rubble thereby easing the way for corporate Rule.