Why is Boehner even trying this lawsuit thing?

[KingOrfeo]

In his op-ed, Boenher says:

That's why, later this month, we will bring legislation to the House floor that would authorize the House of Representatives to file suit in an effort to compel President Obama to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country.

If it's legislation, it can't pass without the Senate's approval, and the President can veto it, and no way is there a 2/3 majority in both houses for such a thing, nor will there be after the midterms. The suit will never be filed if it takes legislation to authorize it. Boehner must know all this.

 

[Liar]

Well duh. This way he can say "it was the Democrats that blocked it" instead of having to actually defend the suit on it's merit.

Meanwhile, it generates lots of pretty soundbites and campaign cash.

 

[unregistered]

 

[bronzeage]

In his op-ed, Boenher says:



If it's legislation, it can't pass without the Senate's approval, and the President can veto it, and no way is there a 2/3 majority in both houses for such a thing, nor will there be after the midterms. The suit will never be filed if it takes legislation to authorize it. Boehner must know all this.

He doesn't have the stomach for a real impeachment hearing. His grip on the House is weak and the Tea Party is pushing the GOP too far right in the primaries. This is basically what is called a "political stunt."

 

[RobDownSouth]

The lawsuit will not prevail in court. It's a transparent end-around on the safeguards provided by the United States Constitution.

Unlike the cowardly Vietnam-era Marines on this board, I will not hesitate to go on record as stating this lawsuit will be dismissed.

How about you, Nostradumbass? Man enough to hazard an on-the-record prediction?



....didn't think so....

 

[Colonel Hogan]

In his op-ed, Boenher says:



If it's legislation, it can't pass without the Senate's approval, and the President can veto it, and no way is there a 2/3 majority in both houses for such a thing, nor will there be after the midterms. The suit will never be filed if it takes legislation to authorize it. Boehner must know all this.

"Boehner’s legal theory is based on work by Washington, D.C., attorney David Rivkin of Baker Hostetler LLP and Elizabeth Price Foley, a professor of law at Florida International University College of Law.

"Rivkin said in an interview that in addition to proving institutional injury, the House would have to prove that as an institution, it has authorized the lawsuit. A vote by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group would do so.

"The suit would also have to prove that no other private plaintiff has standing to challenge the particular suspension of executive action and that there are no other opportunities for meaningful political remedies by Congress, for instance by repeal of the underlying law.

“Professor Foley and I feel that if those four conditions are met, the lawsuit would have an excellent chance to succeed. This is particularly the case because President Obama’s numerous suspensions of the law are inflicting damage on the horizontal separations of powers and undermine individual liberty,” Rivkin said.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/obama-lawsuit-boehner-house/?dcz=

It is inaccurate to call it "legislation." Boehner's legal presumption is that the House does not need permission from the Senate to protect the legislative authority of the House. Regardless of whether a successful legal challenge would change the President's behavior, it is rarely a good thing for a politician to be non-compliant with a judicial order.

Opposition briefs will likely argue that the Constitution makes no other provision other than impeachment to curb Presidential misconduct of a Constitutional or legislative nature. That distinction would leave intact the principle that no person, including the President, is above the criminal and civil statutes as adopted by Congress and the states.

I would think that a civil suit would be rather weak if it did not address a specific statute.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Obama could refuse to pay Congress or pay the House bills. He could do the same to SCOTUS. And Social Security. And the military.

A civil suit is the path around criminal pols and their conspiracies. If a court finds for Congress the court can convict Obama of contempt and jail his shit skin ass.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Senate or the Executive are not part of this independent vote to sue the President. This is the House deciding to sue the President, not the congress assembled.

He says he's introducing legislation authorizing the House to do that, thereby acknowledging it has not that authority now -- and cannot grant itself that authority unilaterally. The Senate still must approve it, the President can still veto it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

He says he's introducing legislation authorizing the House to do that, thereby acknowledging it has not that authority now -- and cannot grant itself that authority unilaterally. The Senate still must approve it, the President can still veto it.

SCOTUS just ruled 9-0 that Obama aint the boss of Congress.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It is inaccurate to call it "legislation."

Well, that's what Boehner called it. What would it be, then? A "resolution"?

 

[cleaver]

boehner has already filed suit
in the court of public discourse.

while it may be academically interesting to discuss this proclamation as a legislative act, you miss the greater point.

congress is broken.
the president is expanding "the scope" of executive orders - (filling an available void)
immigration is an issue.
political stalemate can neither address nor fix immigration nor any greater issue(s) involved.

boehner's "lawsuit" is a talking point
to incite discussion about a broken congress and an executive in expansion.

the intricate politics involved have less to do with party than with turf;
of which - as speaker - boehner is attempting to protect - perhaps as a begrudged legacy?

yes. there is party as well...

still, congress is vulnerable for it's chronic intransigence.

just listen to the news.

boehner is not "trying this lawsuit thing".
he's waging a battle in the greater plebesphere.

 

[Mrtenant]

Every time I see that guys name, I have to do a double take, I coulda swore it read Boner, wtf

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Not so, the bill will only require a vote of the house.

Then it's not legislation. It's a resolution with no force of law.

 

[bronzeage]

Not so, the bill will only require a vote of the house.

Who's going to pay the lawyers?

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

I don't know, but the House controls the purse strings.

Wrong again. They initiate budget bills, but they cannot force the Senate to pass their herp-a-derp. Google "continuing resolution" if you don't believe me.

No need to apologize, we all realize you're a Vietnam-era marine devoid of character and honor.

Simper Fi!

 

[bronzeage]

I don't know, but the House controls the purse strings.

You don't know?

This is an easy one, even for you.

 

[jacktar48]

Every time I see that guys name, I have to do a double take, I coulda swore it read Boner, wtf

I think it was once. His great-grandfather changed it to make it sound more German.

 

[cowslinger64]

Who's going to pay the lawyers?

Well we can't add it to the debt, that would be right wing high treason!!

Too bad they had to waste 25 billion shutting the government down, there were a few bucks to play around with.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[cowslinger64]

Fucking terminal ignorance at work.

You got it... It's YOUR people on the right. Well said.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Well, that's what Boehner called it. What would it be, then? A "resolution"?

Well, the suit itself would not be, but the authorization to pursue it would be, I would think. I could be wrong, but it just seems self-evident to me that anything that did not require Senate approval would be a "resolution."