General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPREDICTION: The Boehner suit against President Obama will be dismissed.
The judge will rule their argument is a political argument, that Boehner personally and the House in general can demonstrate no injury from President Obama's actions and thus lack standing for the matter at hand.
Sorta like how every last Birther case was dismissed due to a lack of standing.
Now, there are people who would have standing out there. Any employee who works for the special class of employer who was allowed to put off purchasing the insurance for a year can demonstrate they were injured due to losing out on employer provided insurance as mandated by the law. But even if the right wing found a person who would have standing and had that person bring suit, it would be too late as we are only months away from the mandate being put into effect any way, thus the courts would have no need for a solution.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)it seems to me it can be dismissed based on the fact that the Constitution specifically lays out remedies for dealing with the president if he violates his oath of office. It's called "impeachment". Amazingly, John "That color doesn't exist in nature" Boehner actually understands that the fastest way to lose badly in 2014 is to impeach, thus this frivolous law suit.
If I were the judge I would dismiss the suit with sanctions against the plantif.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)is to bring a frivolous lawsuit against the President of the United States.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)We should come to expect things of this sort.
malaise
(268,956 posts)on Up this morning
Stallion
(6,474 posts)...and never reach the (lack of) merit to Boner's argument
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)but I am wondering, if this case does go forward and is ruled upon, does that leave the door open for appeal to the supreme court so these jerks can make more new right wing law?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That does not mean the SCOTUS would grant cert, and the courts are loathe to get in between the legislative and executive branches.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)But the executive branch has gotten too powerful IMO. Bush did basically whatever he wanted and nobody bothered to, or was capable of doing shit about it, and I personally would rather have more power in the congress.
Anything that reigns in the power of the Presidency, ANY Presidency, is a good thing in my opinion.
That being said, is "failing to enforce the law as written" a high crime or misdemeanor? If it isn't, then the courts may have redress, but whatever, not like anything is going to be resolved until 2018 anyway.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)whatever 218 members of the House and 67 members of the Senate can agree it is.
Period.
Impeachment and removal from office is a political process, not a legal process. The founders of this nation made it that way on purpose. Thus, a "high crime or misdemeanor" becomes whatever there is enough political will to impeach and convict a president over.
There has never in the history of the United States been a president who committed a high crime or misdemeanor as the Congress has never been able to impeach and convict any president for one.
It remains undefined to this day.
The current Congress could impeach Obama for having a Kenyan father and if 67 Senators vote to convict, having a Kenyan father is a high crime or misdemeanor.
Gothmog
(145,152 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)in the course of his official duties. No standing.