• #21
    This is insulting the American As I responded to my good buddy KnightKore below, the House Speaker and 228 other House GOP voted and AGREED to delay and extend the mandate (what Speaker Boehner's lawsuit is based on) by one year.

    Each and every one of those "Yea" votes will be a witness for the defense (President Obama) and all at the cost of the taxpayers: the attorneys are going to make a lot of money on this one.

    Common sense will kick up when you give it a minute's thought: What attorney sends out a "basis" for the lawsuit in advance? You know how attorneys are..."never...ever let the right hand know what the left hand is doing".

    The good people who are republicans in this country deserve better.

    Either way...Pay Up Taxpayers.
  • #96
    So? That doesn't change that Obama and the Dems shut down the government rather then allow for a delay and then Obama illegally implemented it himself.
  • R Load more replies

  • #106

    I noticed no individual on the politix staff wanted to take credit for pushing this absurdity, especially the way it was framed. I know of no president in history that usurped a settled law by an executive order! That privilege lies with Congress, and no other!

    Incidentally, there are dozens of law suits pending against this mis-administration, not only from congress, but private citizens,businesses and constitutional attorney's. One of which is included in this post, and of course, not limited thereto--
  • #110
    "A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House."

    When Roberts made his about face and called the individual mandate a tax, wouldn't the court have had questions about the origination of the bill at that time?
  • #133
    @galt45 - Not exactly. They could have reviewed that portion but they took on the case they were presented to do more would have truly been legislating from the bench. In that particular case the argument was made that the ACA was unconstitutional because of the fees. That is what SCOTUS decided the case on. Same with Hobby Lobby; there were specific parts that were argued not the entire law.
  • R Load more replies

  • #12
    They're suing Obama because he broke the law. It doesn't matter how stupid the law is, they are the legislative branch. L-E-G-I-S-L-A-T-I-V-E, you know, like, laws?
  • #122
    Ronald Reagan issued the most executive orders of all time at 391 while Barack Obama has issued the lowest number of executive decisions. Why were you guys not complaining when Ronald Reagan was spending most of his time in office changing the laws of the land without consulting Congress? That is when Reagan wasn't asleep .
  • #132
    @frontporchdem - where the hell did you get your stats? 4 had over a 1000, one had 900 and even Billy had 364. Executive decisions allow the president the ability to enforce the laws of the land NOT CHANGE THE LAW AS HE SEES FIT.
  • #148
    @nova_guy "Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent. "

    So, compare the difference between President Obama's executive order to delay the individual mandate for businesses with 50 or more employees for 1 year(He did not change the ACA law , but allowed more time for some businesses to comply with the law; And Ronald Reagan 's executive order to deny federal funding for health organizations that advise on abortion decisions(the gag rule) which is a clear violation of U S law coming out of Roe v Wade .
  • R Load more replies

  • #41
    It is not about the obamacare but about his unilateral decision to ignore portions of a law that he signed himself. It is about his picking and choosing what laws get enforced and what laws do not.
  • #32

    No they are suing because the law cannot be changed by an executive order.
  • #50
    No, they are suing to keep the pot boiling and maintain the flow of contributions.

    Nothing else.

    And you know it, or you should.
  • #60

    "But it's also something congress should have done a long time ago."

    That's ironic, considering what they did do a long time ago.

    "White House officials are scratching their heads over the decision by Republicans to sue President Barack Obama over his decision to delay a requirement in the health care law for businesses to provide coverage to employees.
    That's because, as one senior administration official pointed out on Friday, those same lawmakers voted to do the exact same thing at virtually the exact same time -- defer until 2015 the part of Obamacare known as the employer mandate."
  • #66

    There's more to it than just the employer mandate. IIRC he's changed laws in other ways. I'll try to elaborate later. Right now I have a sick chromatograph to nurse.
  • R Load more replies

  • #29
    Quoting “Politix Staff”(how gutless is that?)

    “...a law that Republicans have voted 40,000 times to repeal.”

    This thread is obviously not intended for serious discussion by intelligent adults.
  • #30
    I would be shocked if he really filed this lawsuit; as a rule lawyers don't litigate this way...showing their case before filing. Thanks for always bring a smile to my face.
  • #49
    The issue is not if the House wanted to delay it or not. They did not gather enough votes to accomplish that. They did want to delay it or repeal it but obama used a stroke of his pen to delay after the house failed to do it. That is not in his power to do under the constitution. So the fact that many Republicans wanted to do what he did in reality has no impact on the issue at hand. The issue is if obama has the authority on his own, without congressional approval, to delay the implementation of a law.
  • R Load more replies

  • #65
    The President changed the law after if had been passed by Congress. His job is to faithfully execute the law not change it and the republicans are absolutely correct. This is a constitutional issue and I suspect it will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Watch this one because it speaks to the heart of the issue of Presidential overreach.
  • #91
    Actually, back in the real world....the lawsuit will be withdrawn by Boehner in less than 60 days, as soon as he realizes it is causing R's to exit the Party in droves, joining the other R's fleeing the Party over the Impeachment Stand-Up Comedy Hour's abject failure to get any traction
    The SCOTUS won't even get a whiff of this "lawsuit".
  • #217
    All you got is a pedantic attempt at name-calling?

    Yep...No bending, scraping, or bowing subserviently to anyone. Unfit for service, most definitely.
    Not me, brutha......There's already too many folks eagerly willing to trundle down the tracks in the livestock cars, clickety-clacking behind the "The LIttle Engine that Could's" coal tender.

    Get back to me, if and when this lawsuit goes anywhere but into the dustbin of history. Any judge that reviews this turkey is probably going to say the exact same thing.......
    "There is no legal basis to sue because the complainant already has an available remedy to seek justice or redress."

    EVERY lawsuit's validity is determined by whether or not there is a remedy available to the litigants for their alleged "complaints". No remedy? OK, then the lawsuit can proceed.
    However, in this case, it's clear there is a remedy available......the House's ability to start an Impeachment process.

    But.....of course, Boehner won't start Impeachment hearings....because attempting an Impeachment would only benefit Obama's approval numbers, when we have only 17 weeks until the mid-terms.

    If Impeachment is will be tossed out immediately because there are no "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" that have occurred.
  • #222
    @Unfit2serve Can't wait to see you eat crow. The reason that it will go through, we think, is because the courts have seemed to say that, because there is no mechanism in the Constitution for some kind of "in between" action, they will rule against the President. That is, there are very limited actions that Congress can take to reign in an out-of-control President. The power of the purse, the power to declare war and the power to impeach. There is nothing to stop him from reading the law in any manner he chooses. Therefore, the courts alone would have jurisdiction. At least that's our understanding.
    And as to remedy, we think that the courts will fashion one. Remember, Obama lost two key votes by 9 to 0. Even his liberal "friends" on the SCOTUS ruled against him. If Boehner is right, and we hope he is, then SCOTUS will rule with similar conviction to save us from an imperialistic dictator like Obama.
  • #18
    Please take my name out of the title....I thought you guys were talking to just me there for a moment..."Hey Wait-----what, check this out."

  • #9
    This lawsuit is in keeping with the lunatic fringe that now controls the U.S. House. These people promoting a modern-day Confederacy are intellectually, morally and politically bankrupt. Folks, the GOP's got nothing. With their behavior and the demographic changes taking place in the U.S. -- the population shifts that have all you Politix commenters' undies in a bundle -- the Republicans are destined to go the way of the Whig Party.
  • #1
    Another false headline. Obama isn't being sued for failing to implement ObamaCare. He's being sued for failing to do his job, thinking himself to be an imperial president who gets to pick and choose what he wishes to implement, or not implement.
  • #4
    Shame on the president for trying to do the will of the people against a bunch of 1% cock blocking republicans. Shame.
  • #7
    @jond414 I constitute the people, and he's not doing my will. Nor is he doing the will of nearly half the nation who voted against his re-election. Despite Barack Obama's over-inflated sense of self-importance, and the willingness of people like you ignore flagrant violations of the U.S. constitution, he is not the dictator he thinks he is.
  • #8
    @CaryNickel notice you said "nearly half". Didn't you see the article on here the other day that said 74% of republicans like ACA? Guess you missed that one huh?(Crickets).
  • R Load more replies

  • #36
    It damn sure isn't for the golden parachute, billion dollar bailout, using tax payers money to through corporate parties, un-American, take from the poor and give to the rich, trickle down economic lying, minimum wage raise denying, tax breaks only for the rich and corporations advocating, government contracts only to their friends giving, no one matters but me crowd.
  • #37
    The republicans offer NOTHING positive to the American public. Just endless phony scandals and thinly veiled racist propaganda aimed at ginning up their base.

    I've repeatedly asked people to give me any positive examples of what the republican party would do for America and gotten nothing substantive in response. What is it that the republican party is FOR? We know they are AGAINST Americans having better access to healthcare, AGAINST minorities being able to vote easily, AGAINST equal rights for gay people, AGAINST women deciding what they can and cannot do with their bodies, AGAINST helping the unemployed, AGAINST raising minimum wage so that life would be better for the working poor, and so on and so on and so on.
  • #55
    Breaking News: In a rarely-seen, final and likely fatal move, House Republicans and John Boehner have vowed to Obstruct all Republican Actions that originate in the House of Reprehensibles.

    Note to all users: Do NOT take this RNC legal action with any other medications.
    Consult your Pharmacist for details, or use our NEW, free, 24/7 Hotline with your valuable input, so John Boehner can answer any questions.......
  • R Load more replies

  • #52
    It isn't the 50 repeals that are quite as hypocritical and was the GOP's "the sky will fall, the Earth will explode" YEARS of their predictions about how letting these very mandates be implemented would "destroy America".

    Well, when the original evil genius plan to create public and business furor over implementing the intended ACA Mandates fails to convince anyone, and as a horseshoe is up our ass and we have a lucky coincidence because of few of those dreaded mandates aren't implemented, Let's all shift gears, REVERSE-complain that "those nasty, horrific mandates that we campaigned to stop for years weren't implemented as the ACA directs them to be implemented.

    We can shorten and rename this can of "zzzzzzz" to the:

    "GOP ACA Twilight Zone Moebius Strip Action of 2014 to Help Republicans find something they can pin on the President before the Mid-Terms Goal and Drive to Mystify and Amaze Doofus Constituents Super-Important Legal Lawsuit".
  • #169
    They are wasting MY money for their potential political gain. Republicans do this for one reason only. So that they can later claim that Obama was taken to task for wrong doing. It's all about creating a negative image in the gullible public mind. The unfortunate thing is that these type tactics actually work effectively in swaying public opinion, justifiably or not. The tactic is employed against climate science as well.
  • #121
    Do you remember that the POTUS turned down Rick Perry's invite to go 'play soldier' on the border ? The POTUS said that he was too busy trying to coax Congress back to work to pass an emergency funding bill that could provide the funding and tools to fix the border crisis. And Congress' answer? John Boehner wants to sue the President for delaying parts of Obamacare without Congress' "say-so"! It doesn't get any more comically absurd then that in the insane asylum we call our U S Congress!
  • #123
    The border crisis that is going to cost us at least $3 billion(closer to $4 billion) to fix could have been avoided one and a half years ago if Speaker John Boehner had not refused to send the Immigration Reform Bill to the floor for a vote. The bill could have passed then and I think that it could still pass if Boehner would allow a vote on it. How much stupidity are we going to tolerate from Republicans until they wreck the whole country?
  • #187
    @frontporchdem I guess you're not paying attention to the WHOLE thing. The House isn't passing it because of all the other crap you liberals are trying to put into it. The house said they approve of parts of the bill, but you liberals think it's all or nothing.
  • #119
    Boehner must have gotten the news that 8 to 11 millions Americans have signed up
    and that most of them are very satisfied with what they got. Contrary
    to Republican predictions.

    Studies conducted by Commonwealth Fund, Gallup poll, and the Urban Institute.

    Boehner is running scared.
  • #214
    I know everyone is jumping for joy. I hear the children singing. Thanks for that and take another happy pill.
  • R Load more comments...