The Congress failing to pass legislation does not excuse a President from taking unconstitutional action. IF the action is unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional regardless of whether Congress "Failed to legislate" (Which is and of itself is a dishonest biased presentation that ASSUMES that the purpose of congress is to simply PASS LAWS, as opposed to PASS BENEFICIAL LAWS. That it's somehow the duty of every congressman to simply get things passed, regardless of whether or not they believe it's necessary, useful, or represents their constituents well).
If the lawsuit occurs, whether or not the President was acting beyond the scope of his constitutional powers will be determined by the courts. However, complaining that “congress didn’t pass things!” (and let’s be honest, it’s “Congress didn’t pass things we wanted it to pass) is not going to likely be a legitimate defense despite the opinions of these liberal commentators.
The continual harping on Bohner not going into in depth legal analysis and specifics regarding the suit is ridiculous. There’s no reason, nor intelligent need, to do such at this point. Undoubtedly an effort to actually put together the brief will be underway. Strategically it is advantageous to avoid specifics, thus allowing the opposition to better craft a defense, until such point that you HAVE to give it. Making assumptions about what the intent of the lawsuit is natural; presenting that assumption as if it’s definitely the truth, OR acknowledging that there are MULTIPLE potential assumptions but settling on the one that makes no logical sense when compared to reality as opposed to the assumptions that DOES…not so much.
One can speculate and comment and criticize the political nature of this all you want; but the criticism over the notion of DARING to actually challenge executive authority is ridiculous.
Nevermind the ever tried and true effort of screaming “BUSH” as loud as possible; a desperate plea for hypocrisy that itself is hypocritical in nature with its one sided aimed. If we are to assume that Obama is acting similarly to what Bush did, but republicans didn’t complain then, then what does it say about those Democrats that did complain then? What does it say of the President whose harsh critiques of executive orders and executive actions as a method of bypassing the normal process were a part of his electoral campaign, but whose actions are now being questioned. It’s always a wonderful kneejerk reaction to go “Bush Bush Bush”, but at BEST that simply calls into question the hypocrisy of those making the accusations…NOT the legitimacy of the accusations themselves. But this hypocritical attack on hypocrisy is not actually meant as a means of arguing against the accusations; rather, it’s purpose is simply as a distraction and diversion and nothing more.