• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's Really Behind Boehner's Lawsuit against President Obama?

O

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
13,012
Reaction score
5,741
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
If you think it's all about abuse of executive power by President Obama's use of Executive Orders, think again.

I've thought about this for a while and I believe I've figured out the real reason behind Boehner's attempt to suit Pres. Obama and it has absolutely nothing to do with the President's use or alleged abuse of executive power in using Executive Orders. The clue comes in two forms:

1. Why won't Boehner push to impeach the President if he truly believes Pres. Obama has over-stepped his bounds in his use or abuse of executive power? If he truly believed the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors or violated his oath of office and his fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, why doesn't he seek to impeach?

2. Why is the basis for bringing about this lawsuit against the President only the delay of implementing the employer mandate under the ACA?

I want readers to really think about those two issues for a moment.

We all know Republicans don't like the ACA and have fought hard to repeal it at least 51 times and have not been successful. As a result, the ACA has continued to go forward. However, if you've paid close attention to where new insurers have come from you'll know that most of the newly covered has come not from the private sector - employer-sponsored health insurance - but from increased Medicaid coverage or through a Health Insurance Exchange be it state or federally sponsored. But let's put that issue on hold for the moment because I want people to think about the bigger picture here.

Fast and Furious, IRS Conservative SuperPAC application scandal, Benghazi scandal, out of control child immigration from Central America...you'd think with all these issues, the GOP would be digging in their heels to impeach the President. But Boehner went out of his way to make it clear that the House (GOP) has no plans to pursue impeachment proceedings. With all of those hot-button, "scandalous" issues in the public sphere one has to ask, "Why not"? The obvious answer is there's really nothing there to bring about impeachment charges that equates to high crimes and misdemeanors. So, most people see this lawsuit for what it is - an ideological attempt to pull back executive power much as what Congress attempted during the Andrew Jackson presidency. Of course, Jackson still went about removing Native Americans from their land.

When you think about this lawsuit Boehner and the House GOP are pushing forward, most people think along those same lines - a push-back on abuse of executive power. But when you compare such claims of executive over-reach against history of U.S. Presidents who have really overstepped their bonds, delaying the employer mandate doesn't come close to the abuse of power Jackson took upon himself. So, what's really behind Boehner's lawsuit?

MONEY! Specifically, long-term investments in the bond market where big investors can safely protect their profits against loses from major shock to the stock market.

Let me be clear: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXECUTIVE ABUSE OF POWER and everything to do with how the commercial bond market might be impacted in the near future. Those of you who are economist, think about it.

What security helps finance pension plans?

Bonds (specifically, insurance contracts) The Tax Advantages of Pension Fund Investments in Bonds

Where are more people obtaining their insurance? Through their private employer or through an HIE or Medicaid?

Thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/obama...ewly-insured-because-affordable-care-act.html

Thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/obamacare-aca/196215-aca-driving-state-level-health-reform.html

What is the yield on commercial bonds today? Depends on what index you're viewing, but this report from CNBC.com should help explain in some measure the connection between the overall bond market, the potential impact on the U.S. economy and investor concerns.

Moody's Seasoned Aaa Corporate Bond Yield (Market Daily)

What are current yields on U.S. Treasury bonds?

Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates

See the connection?
 
Last edited:
I don't see the connection. I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out for me

WRT to your numbered points:

1) He won't go for impeachment because he knows the blowback from the american people would spell disaster for the GOP. The lawsuit, on the other hand, will gain him support from the wingnut lunatic fringe but won't cause the same blowback because it will have no practical effect

2) It's pure politics (see #1) as demonstrated by his support for a House bill that would have delayed the implementation of the employer mandate.
 
sangha said:
I don't see the connection. I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out for me

WRT to your numbered points:

1) He won't go for impeachment because he knows the blowback from the american people would spell disaster for the GOP. The lawsuit, on the other hand, will gain him support from the wingnut lunatic fringe but won't cause the same blowback because it will have no practical effect

2) It's pure politics (see #1) as demonstrated by his support for a House bill that would have delayed the implementation of the employer mandate.
Click to expand...

True but the bizarre aspect as I see it,... if they succeed, then they will have a huge number of employers suddenly having to pony up for a year(s) they thought they'd get the delay. I don't see how that helps them. Yes, they might "shame" Obama, but in doing so one must assume the mandate as originally written will have to be enforced, retro-actively. I just don't see how they win with this at any point, even if they win the suit.

If I were a Dem candidate against any of the Congressmen who voted for it. I'd be pointing out loud and long how they are trying to screw employers by demanding that they adhere to the original legislation even if they had chosen to take the extension, they'll have to pay up on penalty and any applicable interest and penalty.
 
Objective Voice said:
If you think it's all about abuse of executive power by President Obama's use of Executive Orders, think again.

I've thought about this for a while and I believe I've figured out the real reason behind Boehner's attempt to suit Pres. Obama and it has absolutely nothing to do with the President's use or alleged abuse of executive power in using Executive Orders. The clue comes in two forms:

1. Why won't Boehner push to impeach the President if he truly believes Pres. Obama has over-stepped his bounds in his use or abuse of executive power? If he truly believed the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors or violated his oath of office and his fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, why doesn't he seek to impeach?

2. Why is the basis for bringing about this lawsuit against the President only the delay of implementing the employer mandate under the ACA?

I want readers to really think about those two issues for a moment.

We all know Republicans don't like the ACA and have fought hard to repeal it at least 51 times and have not been successful. As a result, the ACA has continued to go forward. However, if you've paid close attention to where new insurers have come from you'll know that most of the newly covered has come not from the private sector - employer-sponsored health insurance - but from increased Medicaid coverage or through a Health Insurance Exchange be it state or federally sponsored. But let's put that issue on hold for the moment because I want people to think about the bigger picture here.

Fast and Furious, IRS Conservative SuperPAC application scandal, Benghazi scandal, out of control child immigration from Central America...you'd think with all these issues, the GOP would be digging in their heels to impeach the President. But Boehner went out of his way to make it clear that the House (GOP) has no plans to pursue impeachment proceedings. With all of those hot-button, "scandalous" issues in the public sphere one has to ask, "Why not"? The obvious answer is there's really nothing there to bring about impeachment charges that equates to high crimes and misdemeanors. So, most people see this lawsuit for what it is - an ideological attempt to pull back executive power much as what Congress attempted during the Andrew Jackson presidency. Of course, Jackson still went about removing Native Americans from their land.

When you think about this lawsuit Boehner and the House GOP are pushing forward, most people think along those same lines - a push-back on abuse of executive power. But when you compare such claims of executive over-reach against history of U.S. Presidents who have really overstepped their bonds, delaying the employer mandate doesn't come close to the abuse of power Jackson took upon himself. So, what's really behind Boehner's lawsuit?

MONEY! Specifically, long-term investments in the bond market where big investors can safely protect their profits against loses from major shock to the stock market.

Let me be clear: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXECUTIVE ABUSE OF POWER and everything to do with how the commercial bond market might be impacted in the near future. Those of you who are economist, think about it.

What security helps finance pension plans?

Bonds (specifically, insurance contracts) The Tax Advantages of Pension Fund Investments in Bonds

Where are more people obtaining their insurance? Through their private employer or through an HIE or Medicaid?

Thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/obama...ewly-insured-because-affordable-care-act.html

Thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/obamacare-aca/196215-aca-driving-state-level-health-reform.html

What is the yield on commercial bonds today? Depends on what index you're viewing, but this report from CNBC.com should help explain in some measure the connection between the overall bond market, the potential impact on the U.S. economy and investor concerns.

Moody's Seasoned Aaa Corporate Bond Yield (Market Daily)

What are current yields on U.S. Treasury bonds?

Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates

See the connection?
Click to expand...

That lawsuit is going nowhere for two reasons.

1) House Republicans do not have standing, which is a requirement for a lawsuit to proceed.

2) And then there is a stickier problem. Where were Republicans when Bush did the exact same thing Obama is doing now?

Courts tend to frown on SLAPP suits, especially ones which are political in nature, which is pretty much what this will be if the GOP is stupid enough to go forward with it. The courts will reason that, if Obama has overstepped his authority, then there is a process to deal with that, which of course is called impeachment.

However, the GOP is walking a fine line here. Clinton's approval numbers were underwater until he was impeached. His impeachment mobilized the Democrats, and his numbers came up. Sure, impeaching Obama might mobilize the GOP base, but it will also mobilize the other side, which would be much worse for Republicans. If the GOP takes back the Senate, they might try impeachment then, but it will be a stupid thing to do.
 
The lawsuit is nothing but a political stunt which will go nowhere. It is an attempt to "rally" the base and nothing more. The sad part is, there are idiots who actually believe this is for real.

To those people I say this, if it was the "real" deal to combat Obama's abuse of power they would be going after impeachment, not a lawsuit that will go nowhere or be enforced in ANY meaningful way to combat Obama's actions.
 
What is behing Boehner's lawsuit? Why politics of course. That is what political hacks do. Better than they spend their time doing that rather than spending more of my money.
 
fmw said:
What is behing Boehner's lawsuit? Why politics of course. That is what political hacks do. Better than they spend their time doing that rather than spending more of my money.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is political. However, they are paid to govern, not engage in petty fights with the President.

The OP is barking up the wrong tree thinking the commercial bond market is the center of this action.

The lawsuit is the poor-man's impeachment because Boehner knows quite well that while it would rally the conservative base, impeachment will backfire with the general public. The lawsuit is a way of showing the base he's doing something without really doing anything.

The law suit is inappropriate for several reasons. If Congress believes the President is overstepping his powers with Executive Orders, the appropriate remedy is Congress passing laws countermanding those EO's.

What remedy is Boehner looking for in the lawsuit? A civil lawsuit entails damages. A court can't order a president not to issue Executive Orders, which are clearly in his powers. It would also be silly for a court to order monetary damages to be paid from one branch of government to another.
 
Summerwind said:
True but the bizarre aspect as I see it,... if they succeed, then they will have a huge number of employers suddenly having to pony up for a year(s) they thought they'd get the delay. I don't see how that helps them. Yes, they might "shame" Obama, but in doing so one must assume the mandate as originally written will have to be enforced, retro-actively. I just don't see how they win with this at any point, even if they win the suit.

If I were a Dem candidate against any of the Congressmen who voted for it. I'd be pointing out loud and long how they are trying to screw employers by demanding that they adhere to the original legislation even if they had chosen to take the extension, they'll have to pay up on penalty and any applicable interest and penalty.
Click to expand...



So your strategy would be to inform the voters that the law that YOU voted for would now be enforced in the form in which it was passed when YOU voted for it?

The message would be that the law is so bad, so onerous, that only a moron would support anyone who wanted to keep it in force.

This sounds like it could work.
 
fmw said:
What is behing Boehner's lawsuit? Why politics of course. That is what political hacks do. Better than they spend their time doing that rather than spending more of my money.
Click to expand...



All true.

The timing is such that this should be in the news at the time of the mid terms.
 
MTAtech said:
I agree that it is political. However, they are paid to govern, not engage in petty fights with the President.

The OP is barking up the wrong tree thinking the commercial bond market is the center of this action.

The lawsuit is the poor-man's impeachment because Boehner knows quite well that while it would rally the conservative base, impeachment will backfire with the general public. The lawsuit is a way of showing the base he's doing something without really doing anything.

The law suit is inappropriate for several reasons. If Congress believes the President is overstepping his powers with Executive Orders, the appropriate remedy is Congress passing laws countermanding those EO's.

What remedy is Boehner looking for in the lawsuit? A civil lawsuit entails damages. A court can't order a president not to issue Executive Orders, which are clearly in his powers. It would also be silly for a court to order monetary damages to be paid from one branch of government to another.
Click to expand...



The problem with that line of logic is that this executive refuses to enforce any law with which he disagrees.

No enforcement means no law.

It may turn out that there is standing in this case due to the fact that Obama has departed from the role assigned in the constitution to the Executive Branch to faithfully execute.

I agree that this is a poetical stunt and a pretty good one considering the timing. It has been discussed for about a year and the timing puts it into the Mid term campaign cycle.

However, Presidents have been selectively enforcing laws for a long time and it should be about time that they are required to perform their Constitutional role.
 
code1211 said:
So your strategy would be to inform the voters that the law that YOU voted for would now be enforced in the form in which it was passed when YOU voted for it?

The message would be that the law is so bad, so onerous, that only a moron would support anyone who wanted to keep it in force.

This sounds like it could work.
Click to expand...

The message would be,

Due to a one word error in the ACA, your Republican candidate's vile hatred of anything Democratic or Obama is so great that they'd rather you suffer $1000s a year in subsidies that the law clearly intended be available for you than to vote for a one sentence amendment that would repair the one word error.
 
Summerwind said:
The message would be,

Due to a one word error in the ACA, your Republican candidate's vile hatred of anything Democratic or Obama is so great that they'd rather you suffer $1000s a year in subsidies that the law clearly intended be available for you than to vote for a one sentence amendment that would repair the one word error.
Click to expand...


Did one word crate the need for all of these changes?

It seems there are so many that it's hard for the critics to keep track of them all.

Whether you like the changes or not, they are bing made outside of the legal methods to do so and this is not allowed by the Constitution.

The changes extend far beyond one word.

Just to be clear, Reid will never allow this abortion to face a vote of any type on the floor of the Senate.

42 Changes to ObamaCare…So Far | Galen Institute

Twenty-Seven Obamacare Changes | National Review Online

Thirty-five Changes To Obamacare...So Far - Forbes
 
code1211 said:
Did one word crate the need for all of these changes?

It seems there are so many that it's hard for the critics to keep track of them all.

Whether you like the changes or not, they are bing made outside of the legal methods to do so and this is not allowed by the Constitution.

The changes extend far beyond one word.

Just to be clear, Reid will never allow this abortion to face a vote of any type on the floor of the Senate.

42 Changes to ObamaCare…So Far | Galen Institute

Twenty-Seven Obamacare Changes | National Review Online

Thirty-five Changes To Obamacare...So Far - Forbes
Click to expand...

The ODS is deep within you. Adios!
 
I guess that is what happens when you have too many words in a bill. The more words, the more chance of encountering mistaken ones. But then the congress had to pass it in order to find out what was in it because nobody in government would read it and it would be up to the private sector to inform people about what was in it. Just too many words. ;)
 
fmw said:
I guess that is what happens when you have too many words in a bill. The more words, the more chance of encountering mistaken ones. But then the congress had to pass it in order to find out what was in it because nobody in government would read it and it would be up to the private sector to inform people about what was in it. Just too many words. ;)
Click to expand...

It would certainly have been more cost effective, more cost controlling, easier to roll out, etc, if they'd just done a one page upgrade to Medicare and opened it to everyone who wanted it, though imo it would have been good to open it in stages of 10 years such that 2010 Medicare would be available for those 52 and older, then in 2011 those 42 and older, and such, with immediate enrollment for anyone of any age that was being denied insurance due to "pre-existing conditions".
 
Objective Voice said:
If you think it's all about abuse of executive power by President Obama's use of Executive Orders, think again.

I've thought about this for a while and I believe I've figured out the real reason behind Boehner's attempt to suit Pres. Obama and it has absolutely nothing to do with the President's use or alleged abuse of executive power in using Executive Orders. The clue comes in two forms:

1. Why won't Boehner push to impeach the President if he truly believes Pres. Obama has over-stepped his bounds in his use or abuse of executive power? If he truly believed the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors or violated his oath of office and his fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, why doesn't he seek to impeach?

2. Why is the basis for bringing about this lawsuit against the President only the delay of implementing the employer mandate under the ACA?

I want readers to really think about those two issues for a moment.

We all know Republicans don't like the ACA and have fought hard to repeal it at least 51 times and have not been successful. As a result, the ACA has continued to go forward. However, if you've paid close attention to where new insurers have come from you'll know that most of the newly covered has come not from the private sector - employer-sponsored health insurance - but from increased Medicaid coverage or through a Health Insurance Exchange be it state or federally sponsored. But let's put that issue on hold for the moment because I want people to think about the bigger picture here.

Fast and Furious, IRS Conservative SuperPAC application scandal, Benghazi scandal, out of control child immigration from Central America...you'd think with all these issues, the GOP would be digging in their heels to impeach the President. But Boehner went out of his way to make it clear that the House (GOP) has no plans to pursue impeachment proceedings. With all of those hot-button, "scandalous" issues in the public sphere one has to ask, "Why not"? The obvious answer is there's really nothing there to bring about impeachment charges that equates to high crimes and misdemeanors. So, most people see this lawsuit for what it is - an ideological attempt to pull back executive power much as what Congress attempted during the Andrew Jackson presidency. Of course, Jackson still went about removing Native Americans from their land.

When you think about this lawsuit Boehner and the House GOP are pushing forward, most people think along those same lines - a push-back on abuse of executive power. But when you compare such claims of executive over-reach against history of U.S. Presidents who have really overstepped their bonds, delaying the employer mandate doesn't come close to the abuse of power Jackson took upon himself. So, what's really behind Boehner's lawsuit?

MONEY! Specifically, long-term investments in the bond market where big investors can safely protect their profits against loses from major shock to the stock market.

Let me be clear: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXECUTIVE ABUSE OF POWER and everything to do with how the commercial bond market might be impacted in the near future. Those of you who are economist, think about it.

What security helps finance pension plans?

Bonds (specifically, insurance contracts) The Tax Advantages of Pension Fund Investments in Bonds

Where are more people obtaining their insurance? Through their private employer or through an HIE or Medicaid?

Thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/obama...ewly-insured-because-affordable-care-act.html

Thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/obamacare-aca/196215-aca-driving-state-level-health-reform.html

What is the yield on commercial bonds today? Depends on what index you're viewing, but this report from CNBC.com should help explain in some measure the connection between the overall bond market, the potential impact on the U.S. economy and investor concerns.

Moody's Seasoned Aaa Corporate Bond Yield (Market Daily)

What are current yields on U.S. Treasury bonds?

Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates

See the connection?
Click to expand...

Because they think Biden is kinder and gentler? :lol:
 
Summerwind said:
It would certainly have been more cost effective, more cost controlling, easier to roll out, etc, if they'd just done a one page upgrade to Medicare and opened it to everyone who wanted it, though imo it would have been good to open it in stages of 10 years such that 2010 Medicare would be available for those 52 and older, then in 2011 those 42 and older, and such, with immediate enrollment for anyone of any age that was being denied insurance due to "pre-existing conditions".
Click to expand...

When will you announce your candidacy? you got my vote already.
 
Summerwind said:
It would certainly have been more cost effective, more cost controlling, easier to roll out, etc, if they'd just done a one page upgrade to Medicare and opened it to everyone who wanted it, though imo it would have been good to open it in stages of 10 years such that 2010 Medicare would be available for those 52 and older, then in 2011 those 42 and older, and such, with immediate enrollment for anyone of any age that was being denied insurance due to "pre-existing conditions".
Click to expand...

The right wants to pretend that their objection to ACA is based on complexity, but the truth is they also object to simple solutions like expanding Medicaid and Medicare, or single payer
 
Summerwind said:
Obama Derangement Syndrome
Click to expand...



Are you saying, then, that there have been no changes made to the ACA by the Executive Branch?

Constitutionally, any change to the law would need to be voted on and approved by Congress.
 
code1211 said:
Are you saying, then, that there have been no changes made to the ACA by the Executive Branch?

Constitutionally, any change to the law would need to be voted on and approved by Congress.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm saying that you're consistently over-reacting to Obama when there's no evidence you did so with any other president.
 
Summerwind said:
Nope, I'm saying that you're consistently over-reacting to Obama when there's no evidence you did so with any other president.
Click to expand...



He's the only president we have right now.

Since I joined this board in 2012, Obama has been the only president we have had.

Would you like me to complain about the Tonkin Gulf Resolution? I have done so in the past on this board.

What would you ask of me?
 
code1211 said:
Are you saying, then, that there have been no changes made to the ACA by the Executive Branch?

Constitutionally, any change to the law would need to be voted on and approved by Congress.
Click to expand...

No, aside from a reconciliation bill Congress passed after ACA, there have been no changes to ACA. The President can not change the law. Only congress can

What has happened is that the President, and his agents in the Executive branch, have issued determinations, something ACA specifically authorizes them to do.
 
sangha said:
No, aside from a reconciliation bill Congress passed after ACA, there have been no changes to ACA. The President can not change the law. Only congress can

What has happened is that the President, and his agents in the Executive branch, have issued determinations, something ACA specifically authorizes them to do.
Click to expand...



There was no reconciliation. The version that the House passed was a verbatim duplicate of the one passed by the Senate. No changes at all.

Any change made by the House would have demanded that both bills be "reconciled" and then that the reconciled bill be voted on again by both houses. Since the super majority in the Senate had gone away which Brown being the 41st vote, this could not be allowed.

This was only one of the many devious and under the table devices used by the Dems to get this abortion into law.

Some very few of the changes were called for by the law and most were not. The various delays of provisions deemed to be politically unpopular have been delayed to avoid having them come up during election cycles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom