# 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:** 15\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/61 "2014-07-16T01:57:48Z")
> [@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. 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. It’s obvious Repubs are only making a stink about this to spite Obama. I mean seriously, this delayed mandate should be seen as a ray of sunshine looming through the giant dark cloud that is Obamacare. At least from the perspective of the GOP. But no, instead of seeing this as a win for small business owners that the GOP claims to hold so dear, they’d much rather cry foul. Because ya’ know, it’s Obama. ---
**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, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/62 "2014-07-16T02:04:34Z")
The problem is in him delaying laws until the last election that matters to him. It’s 100% political. Delaying the employer mandate only makes the law better if you believe the employer mandate is actually problematic. Anyone here believe that? If not, then you’re basically endorsing the delaying of laws because they pose a political problem for the party in power. Which again, is useful to remember. This power will be used again, for exactly this reason, whenever it’s convenient, now that we’ve established that Presidents can implement or refuse to implement any laws they desire. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/63 "2014-07-16T02:43:04Z")
John Boehner has made his decision. Now let him enforce it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/64 "2014-07-16T13:47:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Delaying the employer mandate only makes the law better if you believe the employer mandate is actually problematic. Anyone here believe that? One would think \*you \*did. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/65 "2014-07-16T16:38:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The problem is in him delaying laws until the last election that matters to him. It’s 100% political. Delaying the employer mandate only makes the law better if you believe the employer mandate is actually problematic. Anyone here believe that? > > If not, then you’re basically endorsing the delaying of laws because they pose a political problem for the party in power. Which again, is useful to remember. This power will be used again, for exactly this reason, whenever it’s convenient, now that we’ve established that Presidents can implement or refuse to implement any laws they desire. Your statements are at odds with the statements coming from the Treasury Dept. on why the delay is necessary. The Treasury Dept. has a well-written memo detailing the reasons for the delay, backed up by the requests from those affected for more time to formulate reporting requirements, forms, etc. What evidence do you have to back up your version of why the delay in the employer mandate is happening? ---
**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, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/66 "2014-07-16T18:15:53Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > 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. > 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. Can you quote one post that said this? Perhaps my memory is faulty. ---
**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, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/67 "2014-07-16T18:18:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > **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. He may (and I hope _does_) feel that impeachment is too harsh a penalty. (Of course, he also knows impeachment won’t lead to conviction and removal given the makeup of the Senate). What he wants is mandamus. And there’s no path to mandamus here. ---
**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, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/68 "2014-07-16T21:01:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you quote one post that said this? Perhaps my memory is faulty. The link to the thread is in post #39 above. Here it is again: [linky](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=699744) Toward the end of that thread, you admitted that you were expecting us (i.e. we liberal respondents to the thread) to have answered differently than we did, and more like the way you apparently now remember that we did. I’m saying that you were wrong then and you’re wrong now. Do you think that’s so unlikely that you won’t even review the previous thread for yourself? If you don’t wish to test your worldview against actual events, if your “liberal hypocrisy” belief system is a closed epistemology, then me quoting various posts won’t fix it. For the benefit of others in this discussion, here’s a few notable quotes. Be warned, they tend to follow a set of goalposts which rather arbitrarily march around the field: > [@"...and you, sir, are no Abraham Lincoln."](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/145): > > First of all, the primary example I have used to explain why I think that Presidents should not be forced to follow a statutory deadline in the face of practical consequences rather than political views has been the non-partisan issue of space travel, so I feel confident that your cries of political partisanship of “only Democrat Presidents have special powers” can be safely excluded from my comments. > > But let’s say the hypothetical President Romney and the GOP Congress got the votes together to pass the “Mandatory School Voucher and Legal Citation Education Program of 2019.” That bill fully embraces the elimination of the public school system in the United States and provides Ronald Reagan Freedom Dream and Religious Education Scholarship Grants for every schoolchild in America to attend parochial schools. What’s more, the law requires every schoolchild to receive special training in Lexis-Nexis searches beginning in the third grade, so that every dispute, debate, or even witty exchange could be fully sourced and cited to Supreme Court cases. I’m sure there are plenty of Republicans around the country who would find it to be a glorious piece of legislation, and it might be one of the crowning achievements of the Romney presidency. > > Lo and behold, with the bill being passed so late in Romney’s first term, there’s a problem with implementation. Turns out that the watermark showing Reagan’s face on each voucher check is making the Great Communicator look more like Woody from Toy Story; and wouldn’t you know, Lexis-Nexis doesn’t have the computing resources to accept millions of new children as users of their databases. The implementation deadline of July 1, 2020, simply can’t be met. The President says an extra year is needed to make sure that this program is actually implemented as Congress intended. > > **I’m fine with that.** President Romney is working to fulfill the law as best as he can, and barring any new revelations about his intent, it seems reasonable that the Chief Executive simply cannot snap his fingers to make situations beyond his immediate control such that the law will be implemented by a statutory deadline, but it seems that with a little extra time, the will of Congress will be carried out. > > But, on January 20, 2021, President Howard Dean is inaugurated. He, like me, doesn’t like this law. He knows full well that the program is constitutional (for the Roberts court has already ruled on it), but he just doesn’t think it’s good public policy. He wants to delay implementation because he doesn’t like the law. **In my view, he is not upholding his oath of office, and I believe his actions to be illegal.** > [@"...and you, sir, are no Abraham Lincoln."](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/146): > > And here, the problem… wait, what? > > Look, you have answered clearly, concisely, reasonably, and completely every point I’ve made. So as it happens, I have nothing to say to you except thanks for answering. > > OK, one other thing. I don’t think your opinions are shared by the other responders to this thread. > [@"...and you, sir, are no Abraham Lincoln."](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/147): > > \ for **Ravenman**. > > Seriously, **Bricker** , I doubt you’ll find anyone who’s so far argued in this thread for the legality of Obama’s reporting delay who actually disagrees with **Ravenman** about the relative legalities of the delays by hypothetical President Romney and his hypothetical successor President Dean. > [@"...and you, sir, are no Abraham Lincoln."](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/148): > > Not a problem for me. I agree with **Ravenman** , once again you really do not even have a clue on how you are misrepresenting what we are saying. > [@"...and you, sir, are no Abraham Lincoln."](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/149): > > Ok, I accept that. > > I’m trying to put my mental finger on why I was so convinced that the answers would come out differently, and I think there are a couple of pieces of evidence that nudged me towards that conclusion. > > One is the general acceptance of California’s approach on Prop 8 – they refused to defend it. So I guess I could tweak the Romney/Dean hypo as I started to ask a couple of pages ago: what if the issue were President Romney’s defense of the Mandatory School Voucher and Legal Citation Education Program of 2019? > > In your hypo, the Court has already blessed it. But what if we explore this question – the law gets challenged, Romney’s administration defends it, and then Dean’s administration comes into power and stops defending it in court? > [@"...and you, sir, are no Abraham Lincoln."](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-you-sir-are-no-abraham-lincoln/666501/150): > > I honestly don’t know that a Dept. of Justice can just stop defending an extant case that’s being adjudicated, can they? > > But let’s say under Romney the law has been ruled in error some way by a lesser court and then Pres. Dean is sworn in and instructs the AG (either his newly confirmed nominee or the existing Romney era guy) not to appeal that decision. I think this is probably not improper. Same answer if PPACA had not already been upheld in SCOTUS and a 2017 administration decided not to defend it. Then I think it bounces back to Congress to fix or scrap the law per the specific judgement. > > Same with selective prosecution, I think. I recall that the Bush administration had definite political priorities in the selection of cases to prosecute. I recall many of their choices infuriating those of my political stripe, but I don’t believe that was ever seriously considered unconstitutional discretion. ---
**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, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/69 "2014-07-16T23:13:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you quote one post that said this? Perhaps my memory is faulty. OK, now I recall the issue a bit more clearly. When I began that thread, my point was to illustrate the disconnect: people would support Obama’s acting extra-legally to delay a mandatory program, and not support an incoming Republican president who did the same thing. I argued that this was inconsistent. As that thread developed, though, the argument was teased out more. What I said above was accurate, but incomplete: The bulk of responses in that thread were _Obama’s doing the right thing, but a GOP president wouldn’t be._ What I failed to identify (or, quite frankly, even recall) was that the further argument justified that stance by saying that the REASON Obama’s doing the right thing, but a GOP president wouldn’t be, is that Obama’s action can be safely attributed to an overall desire to make the program successful while the Hypothetical New GOPer’s desire was to hobble the program. And as proof of that concept, a new hypothetical was offered: existing GOP President shepherds through a program beloved by conservatives, and then a new Democratic President is elected. The bulk of responders in that thread said that under those circumstances, they would support the power of the GOP Prez to extra-legally tweak the program, but not the New Dem Prez do to the same, for the same reasoning: GOP Guy is trying to make his program work; New Dem Guy is trying to hobble it. In other words, the apparent inconsistency was shown to be consistent when viewed in the proper context. I didn’t remember that. My apologies. ---
**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 17, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/70 "2014-07-17T00:59:00Z")
With some clarifications, I agree with your corrected assessment of the thread (and accept your honest apology). 1. those of us arguing against you in that thread typically did not think there’s anything extralegal or particularly strange about the delay in reporting requirements (and hence enforcement) of the employer mandate. This sort of adjustment in enforcement timing is literally commonplace within other agencies such as OSHA, MSHA and EPA whenever comprehensive rule changes happen, whether they’re internal to the respective agency or statutory changes. Businesses must be reasonably able to comply with new requirements, particularly those which require new or different accounting, documentation and reporting. Sometimes there are unforeseen difficulties which require more time than originally assumed. It’s a poor administration which would ignore these exigencies. 2. The respective intents of Obama nor Hypothetical Republican POTUS were not arbitrarily assumed. In the present case being potentially litigated by Mr. Boehner it is clearly and extensively documented as a time-bound response to real world difficulties cited by businesses in adjusting to the changes; in the hypothetical cases, they were mostly phrased to make it clear an entire legislative package would be either indefinitely stalled or permanently scuttled via executive inaction and/or roadblocking as a response to political or ideological disagreement. ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/71 "2014-07-20T17:31:29Z")
For the lawyers: who, if anyone, would have standing? Would a business who the rules were supposed to apply to have standing (I know they generally oppose it, but I’m sure Boehner could find someone sympathetic enough to go for it)? What about an employee who would have benefited from it? I would think they would be in plentiful supply. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/72 "2014-07-21T14:12:42Z")
BTW, why is this thread in the Elections forum? It does not belong here. ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/73 "2014-07-21T14:35:10Z")
> [@buddy431](#): > > For the lawyers: who, if anyone, would have standing? Would a business who the rules were supposed to apply to have standing (I know they generally oppose it, but I’m sure Boehner could find someone sympathetic enough to go for it)? What about an employee who would have benefited from it? I would think they would be in plentiful supply. Yes, a person actually harmed would probably have standing. Congressional standing doesn’t come up very often, but the best illustration is probably the line-item veto controversy. The short version is that Congress gave Clinton the authority to cancel out individual provisions in any bill presented to him for signature.\* This was a pretty blatant violation of the Presentment Clause, which governs the way legislation may be enacted. (Senator) Robert Byrd and some other Democrats who had voted against the bill sued, and argued that they had standing because the bill was passed over their objection. Byrd was basically suing Congress on Congress’ behalf, since he sued in his capacity as a legislator. SCOTUS told them to take a hike, because their “injuries” were no different from anyone else’s.\* In fact, SCOTUS has never found that Congresspeople had standing to _bring_ actions against other branches (or themselves). Ultimately, the City of New York sued because Clinton deleted certain appropriations that benefited the city. This time SCOTUS found standing because the city would be directly and uniquely affected by the line item deletions, and that was the end of the Line Item Veto Act. \*Standing requires (among other things) an injury that is “particular to” the plaintiff. Byrd was not harmed by the LIVA any more than any other citizen. So you or I could not sue to stop the Iraq invasion because we opposed it or didn’t want our tax dollars funding it. But a service member would have standing to sue on the grounds that he was being deployed to fight. He would lose, because challenges to the authority of the POTUS as commander-in-chief are “political questions” that the court will not hear, but he would have the requisite particularized injury. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/74 "2014-07-21T18:30:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > BTW, why is this thread in the Elections forum? It does not belong here. Because it’s a political stunt intended primarily to influence the next election. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870/75 "2014-07-21T19:04:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Because it’s a political stunt intended primarily to influence the next election. I daresay it will but Boehner won’t like it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boehners-lawsuit-against-obama/692870.md?page=3)