# Boehner's lawsuit against Obama. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 11, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870 "2014-07-11T16:16:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/41 "2014-07-13T17:43:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that would fly if it wasn’t for the “little” detail that it was corporations and industry the ones that requested the delay, if this was just a political thing you may had the point; but to deny and refuse to consider, not only the precedents, but also what happened on the matter at hand is what tells many in the know that this lawsuit is just being made precisely to fool many into accepting the Republican propaganda. Just like with the ones that pushed the ICE lawsuit, guys like Bohener do not care that this is bound for failure the objective is to rile the base. I don’t know what his motives are, but the fact that corporations were glad that their pain was delayed is not terribly illuminating. They were part of the political blowback. The fact that they didn’t like the mandate doesn’t change the fact that that’s what the law demanded of them. Will they like it better when it’s finally effective? What exactly prevented this law from being executed? What part of the Constitution gives the president the authority to effectively change the law when there is nothing preventing him from executing the law as his oath and the Constitution require? _That’s_ the point. Whatever the prez thinks of the law, he is not the legislature. He doesn’t get to craft the law in a limitless manner, and certainly not because it’s politically convenient. Seriously, if the only thing the president needs to suspend an aspect of a law is the request of those impacted, I’ll get my letter over how problematic income tax is right off to him. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/42 "2014-07-13T18:01:40Z")
**Stratocaster** , your personal distaste for the transitional relief authority enjoyed by federal regulatory agencies is not in and of itself a counterargument to **GIGObuster** ’s point. Doesn’t really matter whether you like (or even understand) the fact that enforcement of new requirements is at the discretion of the entities charged with enforcement, it’s pretty strongly established precedent. And as commonly applied such relief is typically done when the parties affected by a change in a particular regulatory environment present compelling arguments that in order for them to comply with the new rules they need more time to establish the means and methods for compliance. ---
**Author:** ![erysichthon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@erysichthon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erysichthon)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/43 "2014-07-13T19:51:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > WHich is not the same as not enforcing the law at all. A mayor cannot just decide that traffic laws won’t be enforced. He can prioritize, which is what you’re thinking of, but he cannot decide on his own not to enforce the law at all. Lots of states still have laws criminalizing adultery. When was the last time you heard of anyone being arrested and prosecuted for adultery? That’s not prioritizing resources, that’s _ignoring a law completely_. Nobody seems particularly bothered by all that prosecutorial misconduct (well, maybe **adaher** is). ---
**Author:** ![erysichthon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@erysichthon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erysichthon)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/44 "2014-07-13T20:12:24Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > This is a president who decides what aspects of laws he’ll execute purely because of political problems it poses for him, or because he doesn’t like laws as they were crafted. This is a president who feels he has the authority to suspend aspects of laws that are unfolding exactly as written, where he needn’t lift a finger and the law will do exactly what it was written to do. That is a power we should all be vehemently opposed to–whether it’s our party or not, whether we like the outcome or we don’t. We’re talking about Obama delaying implementation of one tiny piece of an enormous law, and the GOP is disingenuously characterizing it as a massive abuse of power. Where is the sense of proportionality? This is sounding more and more like the Clinton impeachment, in which the GOP repeatedly insisted that a lie is a lie is a lie, all lies are equally bad and equally unforgivable, and therefore Clinton must be removed from office because he lied about getting a blowjob. As others have already pointed out in this thread, there is ample precedent for the delay. Your grandiose phrasing notwithstanding, this is a rather commonplace and unremarkable matter. ---
**Author:** ![erysichthon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@erysichthon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erysichthon)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/45 "2014-07-13T20:49:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This lawsuit has plenty of merit. You may not like the GOP’s motives here, but President’s cannot suspend the enforcement of laws. This is not prosecutorial discretion or lack of resources. This is simply a case of the law being problematic and the President deciding on his own not to enforce it. It’s equivalent to Nixon’s impoundment of funds. It’s simply not a Presidential power. I don’t agree with you about the supposed merit of this ridiculous lawsuit, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. The suit will be dismissed because the House has no standing. They have not been harmed in any way by Obama’s delay of the employer mandate. I don’t understand why you insist that the delay is a monstrous act because of Obama’s political motives, while simultaneously dismissing the GOP’s motives as irrelevant. This lawsuit is a political stunt. Boehner is being hectored by the crazy wing of the GOP, which wants Obama impeached for Presidenting While Black. But Boehner is smart enough to know that impeachment is a political loser, so he came up with this Impeachment Lite lawsuit. It’s nothing more than political theater; it’s frivolous litigation and will not be well-received. I can’t imagine a judge being too thrilled at the GOP’s attempt to cast him/her in their little drama. ---
**Author:** ![erysichthon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@erysichthon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erysichthon)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/46 "2014-07-13T21:07:49Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > Looking at the timing here, I wonder even if Boehner _et al_ somehow pulled off a win in their lawsuit, could they do so prior to the already scheduled implementation of reporting requirements in 2015? What exactly is it they want their political base (and/or the rest of the country) to see as the nominal goal here? That’s an excellent point about the timing. What conceivable remedy could the courts provide? “Mr. President, you have exceeded your authority! We order you to implement the employer mandate! Oh, wait, it’s already 2015. Never mind!” Asking the GOP about their “goal” is like asking a dog what he plans to do with that car he’s chasing. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/47 "2014-07-13T21:42:19Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > **Stratocaster** , your personal distaste for the transitional relief authority enjoyed by federal regulatory agencies is not in and of itself a counterargument to **GIGObuster** ’s point. Doesn’t really matter whether you like (or even understand) the fact that enforcement of new requirements is at the discretion of the entities charged with enforcement, it’s pretty strongly established precedent. And as commonly applied such relief is typically done when the parties affected by a change in a particular regulatory environment present compelling arguments that in order for them to comply with the new rules they need more time to establish the means and methods for compliance. Surely that discretion is not without limits. And unless I misunderstood GIGObuster’s point, he seemed to think that the fact that those subject to the mandate welcomed a delay was, by itself, some sort of mitigating factor that somehow escaped my scrutiny. It’s not. It’s sort of a no-shit point (by itself at least), sort of like pointing out that the convicted murderer welcomed the stay of execution as if that’s a surprise or something. Anyway, I think Boehner could have included a laundry list of abuses, but he picked this one because it was one where the beneficiary is not necessarily a sympathetic one to the general public, like illegal immigrants or individual health insurance contract owners might be. It was an abuse that would be more difficult to turn into a handy talking point–“The GOP wants you to have to give up your insurance and/or deport your grandmother!” We’ll see how it plays out, but however strongly the precedent of executive discretion has been established, I don’t believe it should apply to a president pushing something out past an election cycle for largely political reasons. That’s not the same as saying I’m confident the GOP will prevail. But the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes the judiciary to compel the executive branch to initiate statutorily required actions that have been “unreasonably delayed.” We’ll see who considers what reasonable, assuming it ever gets in front of the courts. ---
**Author:** ![erysichthon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@erysichthon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erysichthon)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/48 "2014-07-13T22:06:34Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Surely that discretion is not without limits. And unless I misunderstood GIGObuster’s point, he seemed to think that the fact that those subject to the mandate welcomed a delay was, by itself, some sort of mitigating factor that somehow escaped my scrutiny. It’s not. It’s sort of a no-shit point (by itself at least), sort of like pointing out that the convicted murderer welcomed the stay of execution as if that’s a surprise or something. You’re comparing a civil suit to a (hypothetical) criminal case. GIGObuster’s point was valid; in a lawsuit, one party has been allegedly harmed by the other. Who was harmed here? Not the House of Representatives; they weren’t affected at all. Since they’ve repeatedly voted to repeal the ACA, it’s pretty stupid for them to claim that Obama’s delayed enforcement of one small part of it somehow hurts them. The only parties affected by the delay WANTED it, so they obviously aren’t interested in suing anybody over it. You can’t sue on behalf of someone else, unless they’re a minor or incapacitated. I haven’t noticed Boehner claiming that the businesses who begged for a delay are somehow incapable of acting in their own behalf. If the GOP really, truly believes that a monstrous abuse of Presidental authority has occurred, then the Constitution already provides a remedy: impeachment. That wouldn’t require the irritating nuisance of actually being an injured party. But impeachment is the last thing Boehner wants, although he’s too chicken to admit that. When asked for a response to Sarah Palin’s word-salad impeachment rant, all he could manage was a wimpy “I disagree.” ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/49 "2014-07-13T22:43:54Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > But the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes the judiciary to compel the executive branch to initiate statutorily required actions that have been “unreasonably delayed.” We’ll see who considers what reasonable, assuming it ever gets in front of the courts. Well, on the latter point I won’t be surprised if the suit doesn’t get carried forward once Boehner has his authorization bill done. Seems hard to believe he’d want to go beyond the political theater into an actual court. The Speaker strikes me as more politically clever than most of his caucus (not that this is saying much). As far as the “unreasonable” standard for delays, IANAL but it’s my understanding the courts have required pretty stringent evidence that decisions to delay statutory requirements were taken in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Which goes directly back to **GIGO** ’s point. I kinda hope this does become an actual suit, just to see some real cogent analyses in our scandal obsessed news media, if only during reporting of the resultant legal arguments and judgements. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/50 "2014-07-14T08:57:35Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > As far as the “unreasonable” standard for delays, IANAL but it’s my understanding the courts have required pretty stringent evidence that decisions to delay statutory requirements were taken in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Which goes directly back to **GIGO** ’s point. I kinda hope this does become an actual suit, just to see some real cogent analyses in our scandal obsessed news media, if only during reporting of the resultant legal arguments and judgements. I’ll be following closely as well. And frankly, I don’t think this is the strongest case Boehner could have chosen, though it has merit (IMO). But I think he chose this for the political reasons I noted previously. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/51 "2014-07-15T18:01:56Z")
Not even on paper yet and [it’s already backfiring.](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/212243-poll-boehner-lawsuit-v-obama-a-political-stunt) > [@](#): > > The survey, commissioned by liberal advocacy group Americans United for Change, found 51 percent of voters don’t believe the lawsuit is legitimate, versus just 41 percent who do. > > Moreover, 56 percent say the lawsuit is wasteful spending, with just 36 percent saying it is a good use of taxpayer dollars. > … > The survey found that a plurality of Americans — 46 percent — say the lawsuit makes them less likely to vote for Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. By contrast, 3 in 10 say the lawsuit makes them more likely to vote for the GOP. > > Some 58 percent of voters say the suit will not help improve the lives of people like them, and 63 percent say Congress should be more focused on taking action to create jobs. Oh, don’t look so surprised. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/52 "2014-07-15T19:30:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > At the very least, it will clarify some rules. If a president can delay any aspect of a law he finds problematic, that’s useful for a future Republican President to know. If he can’t, that’s also important. > > Given the President’s horrible record in front of the judicial branch, I wouldn’t bet against the GOP lawsuit. I will bet against it, because there is an enormous standing problem here before you ever reach the merits of the case. $50? A nice bottle of liquor? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/53 "2014-07-15T20:34:20Z")
I actually do think that this is probably the strongest case they have in terms of illegalities. However I really can’t see this working for them politically. Most people aren’t going to be interested in legal technicalities, they want something simple that they can understand and see why its evil or harmful. Since they opposed the ACA in the first place its going to be hard for the GOP to articulate why Obama’s delay was evil and harmful to the country. The only people who are going to be convinced that this indicates a dictatorial abuse of power are those who are already convinced. I think they probably would have been better off going for something a little more juicy like the IRS, Bengazi or Snowden. Sure they would have lost but they could always argue that that was only due to a liberal activist court, and with any luck the verdict wouldn’t be in until after the midterms. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I will bet against it, because there is an enormous standing problem here before you ever reach the merits of the case. $50? A nice bottle of liquor? Speaking of which, I notice Bricker hasn’t weighed is. That doesn’t bode well for Adher’s side. If Bricker thought that this would go against Obama he’d be here quoting Latin and taking bets like Rupert Steggles at the special Olympics. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/54 "2014-07-15T22:08:35Z")
He might just not have seen the thread. I didn’t until just before I posted. I am of course willing to bet against **Bricker** if **adaher** isn’t game (though I suspect he will agree with me.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/55 "2014-07-16T00:39:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > He might just not have seen the thread. I didn’t until just before I posted. I am of course willing to bet against **Bricker** if **adaher** isn’t game (though I suspect he will agree with me.) I do. No standing under 5 USCS § 702. The truth is: there’s no real remedy. Nonetheless, his actions violate the law. But Congress is going to have to suck it up, because this particular violation of law has no remedy. It irks me that everyone is giving Obama a pass on this but will, I suspect, howl in anger at a GOP president doing the same thing. Last year I started a thread in which I tried to get people to commit to endorsing the Presidential power do act thusly, with the hope that they’d either criticize Obama or that that I could use their agreement with Obama’s actions against them after 2017 starts and a GOP President is in the White House. But the bulk of the responses in that thread were: _Obama’s doing the right thing, but a GOP president wouldn’t be._ ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/56 "2014-07-16T00:51:33Z")
So a President can just refuse to implement any laws he wishes? And another question: If a President cannot impound funds, and Congress had standing to sue over the President refusing to spend money, then why wouldn’t Congress have standing to sue over a President refusing to implement laws? And doesn’t this also relate to the impoundment case, since presumably the President isn’t spending the money appropriated to enforce the employer mandate? Isn’t that impoundment done another way? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/57 "2014-07-16T00:54:05Z")
> **[Train v. City of New York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_v._City_of_New_York)** > > Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975), was a statutory interpretation case in the Supreme Court of the United States. Although one commentator characterizes the case's implications as meaning "\[t\]he president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment,"\[citation needed\] the Court majority itself made no categorical constitutional pronouncement about impoundment power but focused on the statute's language and legislative history. The words "Constituti In... Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States whose implications mean “[t]he president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment.”[1] In this case, President Richard Nixon was of the view that the administration was not obligated to disburse all funds allocated by Congress to states seeking federal monetary assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and ordered the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program he vetoed, and which had been overridden by Congress.[1] Russell E. Train, the administrator of the EPA at the time, complied with the order. Several prospective recipients of the funds (which were intended to subsidize construction of municipal sewers and water treatment works), including the city of New York and several other municipalities, promptly sued, seeking judgment that the administrator was obligated to disburse full amounts authorized and an order directing him to make those allotments. Okay, so the recipients sued. But doesn’t that mean that all Boehner has to do is get someone not getting employer insurance because of the delayed mandate to sue? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/58 "2014-07-16T01:20:23Z")
It’s doubtful that he’d do that. It would be politically problematic for a Republican to aid someone in accessing insurance under the ACA. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/59 "2014-07-16T01:27:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It irks me that everyone is giving Obama a pass on this but will, I suspect, howl in anger at a GOP president doing the same thing. Almost every Executive Branch administration has made similar decisions in implementing changes to existing rules & regulations, or in rolling out broad programs. Only the crazies at the extreme margins used to howl like this, but it seems the elephant tent for the past decade or so has filled up with deranged howler monkeys. > [@Bricker](#): > > Last year I started a thread in which I tried to get people to commit to endorsing the Presidential power do act thusly, with the hope that they’d either criticize Obama or that that I could use their agreement with Obama’s actions against them after 2017 starts and a GOP President is in the White House. > > But the bulk of the responses in that thread were: _Obama’s doing the right thing, but a GOP president wouldn’t be._ That is not a remotely accurate characterization of that thread, which I linked to in post # 39 above. **All** of us who supported Obama in this, and who responded directly to your rather tortured hypotheticals in the previous thread agreed that a Republican president who authorized a comparable delay in one aspect of a new and similarly broad ranging piece of legislation would be acting in good faith to “faithfully execute the laws of the United States”. I should be surprised and dismayed that you remember things differently. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/60 "2014-07-16T01:46:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I do. No standing under 5 USCS § 702. Bah. Couldn’t have waited until somebody else had taken the bet? :mad: > [@adaher](#): > > So a President can just refuse to implement any laws he wishes? **Bricker** means Boehner has no _judicial_ remedy. If he genuinely believes that Obama has not faithfully carried out the duties of a president, he should seek impeachment. > [@](#): > > …doesn’t that mean that all Boehner has to do is get someone not getting employer insurance because of the delayed mandate to sue? Yes, pretty much. But then there is a [mootness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness) problem; by the time the case comes to trial, there will no longer be a judicially redressable dispute - that is, the employer mandate will be in effect. So the court still won’t hear the case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870.md?page=4)