• 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!

Boehner has hired two law firms to sue President Obama. They've both quit.

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,352
Reaction score
28,653
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Back in July, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to file a historically unprecedented lawsuit against President Obama for delaying Obamacare's employer mandate. But months have since passed, with no news that a lawsuit has been drawn up or filed. There's been some speculation that Speaker John Boehner was intentionally slow-walking the process until after the election, not wanting to jeopardize the party's potential Senate gains by reviving headlines of House GOP overreach.

This week, however, Politico's Josh Gerstein and Maggie Haberman reported that Boehner's actually been having serious problems even finding a law firm willing to file the suit — two have tentatively signed on, and then gotten cold feet. Originally, attorney David Rivkin — who crafted the unique legal arguments Boehner used to justify the suit — was supposed to draw up the suit itself. But his firm, Baker Hostetler, pulled out. More recently, Bill Burck of the firm Quinn Emanuel was also tentatively hired, until similarly backing away.

Boehner has hired two law firms to sue President Obama. They've both quit. - Vox

Classic.

Bohener is willing to shell out millions to a firm for this, but no one wants to take the case because they know its a reputation killer. Apparently Boehner doesn't really have one to kill.

No one wants to take this stupid case, so Boehner might have to do it via House lawyers. If this doesnt show how the GOP has hit rock bottom, I dont know what does, especially when the point of the suit is that Obama has delayed the ACA's employer mandate (which affects about 5% of businesses, or maybe less at this point), and the same people who are claiming this is 'unconstitutional' are also shouting on how the employer mandate will destroy America.
 
The lawsuit was a bad idea from the start, so it falling apart is a good thing. If the congress doesn't like what the president is doing, they can defund it.
 
The lawsuit was a bad idea from the start, so it falling apart is a good thing. If the congress doesn't like what the president is doing, they can defund it.

Bad ideas seem to be a hallmark of Boehners GOP House (remember the government shutdown over...something, and the debt ceiling fiascos?).

It's a mystery to me why they keep getting voted back in.
 
Thanks for the update. I'd be willing to bet, the courts will either say the case is nonjusticiable or deny Boehner et al. standing.
 
Bad ideas seem to be a hallmark of Boehners GOP House (remember the government shutdown over...something, and the debt ceiling fiascos?).

It's a mystery to me why they keep getting voted back in.

Could it be an incompetent President and members of Congress who put the Democrat party above what's best for America ?
 
The lawsuit was a bad idea from the start, so it falling apart is a good thing. If the congress doesn't like what the president is doing, they can defund it.

Are you kidding me? Suppose a president decided to delay a tax law change - how can you defund that other than not funding IRS to collect any taxes? Can congress prevent Obama from ignoring federal immigration law enforcement by defunding it?
 
Boehner has hired two law firms to sue President Obama. They've both quit. - Vox

Classic.

Bohener is willing to shell out millions to a firm for this, but no one wants to take the case because they know its a reputation killer. Apparently Boehner doesn't really have one to kill.

No one wants to take this stupid case, so Boehner might have to do it via House lawyers.
If this doesnt show how the GOP has hit rock bottom, I dont know what does, especially when the point of the suit is that Obama has delayed the ACA's employer mandate (which affects about 5% of businesses, or maybe less at this point), and the same people who are claiming this is 'unconstitutional' are also shouting on how the employer mandate will destroy America.



I predict that this lawsuit will go nowhere and accomplish nothing.

It will be a fitting monument to the GOP Controlled House which has done nothing for the USA.
 
Are you kidding me? Suppose a president decided to delay a tax law change - how can you defund that other than not funding IRS to collect any taxes? Can congress prevent Obama from ignoring federal immigration law enforcement by defunding it?
A lawsuit isn't going to stop him either. If congress doesn't like what he is doing they should impeach him. The courts aren't going to step in.
 
I was referring to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Comrade Judy Chu, Debbie Wasserman and community organizers.

Oh.

Did they engage in political grandstanding by filing a lawsuit against the president?
Or was that just a variation of the "Oh look! A squirrel!" diversion?
 
A lawsuit isn't going to stop him either. If congress doesn't like what he is doing they should impeach him. The courts aren't going to step in.

Impeachment 101: The House can vote to indict but only the Senate can vote to convict.

Obama did not have sex with our immigration policy but he did **** it up. ;)
 
Impeachment 101: The House can vote to indict but only the Senate can vote to convict.

Obama did not have sex with our immigration policy but he did **** it up. ;)

Immigration policy was (bleep!)ed up long before anyone heard of Obama.

And, if the Congress wants to fix it, they can. Impeaching the president over it would just be more political grandstanding, accomplishing nothing.

If we had a functioning Congress, perhaps they would address the issue instead of simply proposing an expensive boondoggle (border fence) that everyone knows won't work and will never be built and blaming the problem entirely on Obama.

But, alas, we don't have a functioning Congress.
 
Immigration policy was (bleep!)ed up long before anyone heard of Obama.

And, if the Congress wants to fix it, they can. Impeaching the president over it would just be more political grandstanding, accomplishing nothing.

If we had a functioning Congress, perhaps they would address the issue instead of simply proposing an expensive boondoggle (border fence) that everyone knows won't work and will never be built and blaming the problem entirely on Obama.

But, alas, we don't have a functioning Congress.

I agree that Obama is not the only POTUS to try to ignore federal immigration law enforcement (but is very much more "in your face" aboput it) and that using a federal police force (ICE) only the size of the police forces of Boston and Baltimore (combined) to patrol the entire nation's interior is NEVER going to work. Endless rounds of amnesty followed by "hoping for change" is not the solution either. To assert that a nation that "has resources" to police the world somehow "lacks resources" to secure our own border is insane. The majority of the blame lies with the fact that our congress critters depend on campaign cash from those that now enjoy using low cost foreign labor within our borders.
 
Immigration policy was (bleep!)ed up long before anyone heard of Obama.

And, if the Congress wants to fix it, they can. Impeaching the president over it would just be more political grandstanding, accomplishing nothing.

If we had a functioning Congress, perhaps they would address the issue instead of simply proposing an expensive boondoggle (border fence) that everyone knows won't work and will never be built and blaming the problem entirely on Obama.

But, alas, we don't have a functioning Congress.
I think we have a congress that functions exactly as designed. We have a very deeply divided country on virtually every issue and that is reflected in the congress. If they cant find consensus on an issue like immigration, then there should be no resolution. It doesn't mean that the president should just get to do whatever he wants. That is dysfunction and lawlessness.
 
I think we have a congress that functions exactly as designed. We have a very deeply divided country on virtually every issue and that is reflected in the congress. If they cant find consensus on an issue like immigration, then there should be no resolution. It doesn't mean that the president should just get to do whatever he wants. That is dysfunction and lawlessness.

I'm not so sure the country is really that divided, but the Congress certainly is. The goal of both sides is power, pure and simple, and the way to get power is to make sure that you support your side of the aisle regardless of what is good for the country.

We could deal with illegal immigration. Congress does not want to deal with illegal immigration. They'd rather use the issue as a political football to score points against the other side. Moreover, as Ttwitt points out, the large donors like the cheap labor.
 
Back
Top Bottom