John Boehner and Republicans just voted to sue the President.

[Dirty Penguin]

Does he have legal Standing?

Is the lawsuit legit?

I have my opinion but wanted hear yours....

 

[metis]

It's undoubtedly just political grandstanding in an election year. The SCOTUS in the past pretty much avoided doing much with these partisan-style issues, but with the Wacky Five on the Court, ....

 

[xkatz]

Does he have legal Standing?

It's definitely better than impeachment right now, but I don't think anything will come to fruition because of it.

 

[Tarheeler]

It's undoubtedly just political grandstanding in an election year. The SCOTUS in the past pretty much avoided doing much with these partisan-style issues, but with the Wacky Five on the Court, ....

It may not go too far at all. Political questions is a category that the Court typically claims to not have jurisdiction over and leaves to the political process to resolve.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm also interested in how much this going to cost "us". The Republican lead government shutdown cost us $24 Billion Dollars and a dip in GDP. The efforts to appeal the ACA cost "us" nearly $80 Million dollars. Why is it when republicans grand stand it cost us so much money?

 

[Sunstone]

Win or lose, this is a political victory for the Democrats.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Whatever happened to the "fiscally conservative" moniker many of them claimed to espouse? Democrats in the House were trying to add some oversight amendments to the bill that, IMO, simply made sense such as;

To provide oversight by informing the public on a weekly basis how much taxpayer money is being spent on the Boehner v. Obama lawsuit. Repubs voted NO.

Requiring Congress to disclose how the lawsuit will be paid for, specifically which offices budget lines will be decreased in order to pay for the suit (where the tax payer funds are coming from) Repubs voted NO

Can not hire a firm that has a stake in the implementation of the ACA. Repubs voted NO.

What's up with the "no" votes to these common sense amendments? Don't they like accountability and transparency?

 

[Sunstone]

Win or lose, this is a political victory for the Democrats.

It would be a real windfall for the Democrats if the Republicans would just follow this up with impeachment. The extremists in the Republican base are just politically stupid enough to demand that, too.

 

[metis]

Whatever happened to the "fiscally conservative" moniker many of them claimed to espouse? Democrats in the House were trying to add some oversight amendments to the bill that, IMO, simply made sense such as;

To provide oversight by informing the public on a weekly basis how much taxpayer money is being spent on the Boehner v. Obama lawsuit. Repubs voted NO.

Requiring Congress to disclose how the lawsuit will be paid for, specifically which offices budget lines will be decreased in order to pay for the suit (where the tax payer funds are coming from) Repubs voted NO

Can not hire a firm that has a stake in the implementation of the ACA. Repubs voted NO.

What's up with the "no" votes to these common sense amendments? Don't they like accountability and transparency?

I have long felt that most of the Republicans are not really "conservatives" but are "pseudo-conservatives"-- they talk the talk but simply don't walk the walk.

 

[esmith]

Well according to Jonathan Turley, who is described as a liberal law professor who supports Obama, says that lawmakers must support this lawsuit.

Turley: Congress 'Must Act' Against Obama Or Face 'Self-Destruction' | The Daily Caller

Now, since I have little or no legal education in Constitutional Law I will have to rely on those that do. Therefore, I support this lawsuit.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well according to Jonathan Turley, who is described as a liberal law professor who supports Obama, says that lawmakers must support this lawsuit.

Turley: Congress 'Must Act' Against Obama Or Face 'Self-Destruction' | The Daily Caller

Now, since I have little or no legal education in Constitutional Law I will have to rely on those that do. Therefore, I support this lawsuit.

But does Boehner have "legal standing?"

Can Boehner or any business show that they've been negatively affected by a decision to delay the employer mandate?

It would seem the next play is for Republicans to try and bring the lawsuit against the president on behalf of an employee of a company that is unable to get insurance through their job because the employer mandate has been delayed. If they did this they might be successful in helping Democrats speed up the full implementation of the ACA by requiring employers to cover their employees. It's what we wanted from the start and it's what the GOP has been fighting all along. Do you happen to know why the GOP trying to help Democrats implement the ACA to its fullest?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The political implosion and collapse of the Republican party continues. It's fascinating how these people never learn a single thing. They make the old quote "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result" ring as true as a bell. If these morons don't start stepping outside their bubble of fantasies and delusions, the GOP is finished as a political party.

 

[esmith]

But does Boehner have "legal standing?"

Can Boehner or any business show that they've been negatively affected by a decision to delay the employer mandate?

It would seem the next play is for Republicans to try and bring the lawsuit against the president on behalf of an employee of a company that is unable to get insurance through their job because the employer mandate has been delayed. If they did this they might be successful in helping Democrats speed up the full implementation of the ACA by requiring employers to cover their employees. It's what we wanted from the start and it's what the GOP has been fighting all along. Do you happen to know why the GOP trying to help Democrats implement the ACA to its fullest?

Did you not read my linked article. A Constitutional lawyer said they had the legal standing and obligation to do so. HE CHANGED THE ACA LAW BY EXECTIVE ORDER NOT THROUGH CONGRESS. Do you not understand the reasoning behind the law suit or is it that you are only objecting because it is against the ACA?

 

[metis]

Executive orders do not go through Congress and have been used extensively by pretty much all Presidents going back to George Washington. "W" Bush did the exact same thing Obama has done when delaying the implementation of both Medicare Plan D and some of EPA requirements, and it's rather strange that I don't remember any Republicans whining about those executive orders.

So now we are going to pay millions of dollars when it very obvious that all that's going on here is partisan politics. So much for the Republicans being "fiscally responsible".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Did you not read my linked article. A Constitutional lawyer said they had the legal standing and obligation to do so. HE CHANGED THE ACA LAW BY EXECTIVE ORDER NOT THROUGH CONGRESS. Do you not understand the reasoning behind the law suit or is it that you are only objecting because it is against the ACA?

My only quip about the ACA is how republicans seem hell bent on helping democrats implement a law that they themselves had legislation on to do the exact same thing....and how "IF" successful they will be responsible for helping to implement a law that they worked so hard to repeal. That's why I said what I said. And I know what the lawyer said...but time after time congress when trying to sue a president over something they don't like...their case is either not heard because it's been determined they actually DON'T have standing or the simple fact that the courts refuse to hear the squablings of the two branches...

Metis put some of this in historical context....
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3864162-post14.html

Executive orders do not go through Congress and have been used extensively by pretty much all Presidents going back to George Washington. "W" Bush did the exact same thing Obama has done when delaying the implementation of both Medicare Plan D and some of EPA requirements, and it's rather strange that I don't remember any Republicans whining about those executive orders.

 

[metis]

It's the law-suit labeled as "suing the President" that shows the colors of what the Republicans are up to. In every single previous attempt by any Congress through all of American history to challenge a particular executive order, it was the specific provision(s) in question that were the items challenged in court, not the entire President. It's strictly an approach to try and demean Obama.

If Obama and Boehner ever play golf together again, I know what Obama should do with his golf clubs. "Look, a hole in one!"

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's the law-suit labeled as "suing the President" that shows the colors of what the Republicans are up to. In every single previous attempt by any Congress through all of American history to challenge a particular executive order, it was the specific provision(s) in question that were the items challenged in court, not the entire President. It's strictly an approach to try and demean Obama.

If Obama and Boehner ever play golf together again, I know what Obama should do with his golf clubs. "Look, a hole in one!"

Hey...Here's a bit of irony for ya.....

Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

H.R.2667 -- Authority for Mandate Delay Act (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 2667 IH

113th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 2667
To delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 11, 2013


A BILL
To delay the application of the employer health insurance mandate, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Authority for Mandate Delay Act'.
SEC. 2. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE.

(a) In General- Section 1513(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `December 31, 2013' and inserting `December 31, 2014'.

(b) Reporting Requirements-
(1) REPORTING BY EMPLOYERS- Section 1514(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `December 31, 2013' and inserting `December 31, 2014'.

(2) REPORTING BY INSURANCE PROVIDERS- Section 1502(e) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `2013' and inserting `2014'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in the provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to which they relate

That was then....now there's an election afoot...!!!!


The courts should have this bill in front of them when the lawyers get up there to speak...

 

[metis]

Hey...Here's a bit of irony for ya.....

Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


That was then....now there's an election afoot...!!!!


The courts should have this bill in front of them when the lawyers get up there to speak...

I hear ya.

 

[esmith]

It seems that there are those that are willing to give Obama a pass on anything that he wants to do; However if a president does not exemplify their social and political views attempted to do the same thing there would be those ( in Congress) calling for his impeachment as was the case in 2005. So, again for those of you who do not have the education to determine the necessity for stopping the current president or future president for overstepping his or her Constitutional authority I suggest you listen to those that are Constitutional lawyers and those that do not see the ongoing and future current Constitutional crisis as a problem are a problem. I rest my case.

 

[metis]

It seems that there are those that are willing to give Obama a pass on anything that he wants to do; However if a president does not exemplify their social and political views attempted to do the same thing there would be those ( in Congress) calling for his impeachment as was the case in 2005. So, again for those of you who do not have the education to determine the necessity for stopping the current president or future president for overstepping his or her Constitutional authority I suggest you listen to those that are Constitutional lawyers and those that do not see the ongoing and future current Constitutional crisis as a problem are a problem. I rest my case.

As you stated previously, you do not much understand Constitutional law, and you have made some mistakes in the past on this, including above. Executive orders are not unconstitutional and have been used by all Presidents, and I'll betcha you complaineth not when "W" Bush, who used them more than Obama, was president.

Maybe if you watched something other than the Fox Propaganda Channel you wouldn't be making so many mistakes. BTW, I spent a lot of time teaching the Constitution in my political science classes since all federal law must refer back to it directly or indirectly.

So, "I rest my case".