boehner-and-obama

In his weekly press conference June 25, 2014, House Speaker John Boehner confirmed that he will initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the House against President Obama over the administration’s use of executive actions. Boehner asserted:

“This is about defending the institution in which we serve. What we’ve seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch. I believe the President is not faithfully executing the laws of our country and, on behalf of the institution and our constitution, standing up and fighting for this is in the best long-term interest of the Congress.”

When questioned by a reporter as to what specific executive actions he plans to challenge in court, Boehner replied, “When I make that decision, I’ll let you know.”

While undoubtedly we’d all like to know this, it isn’t as important as knowing what led Boehner to take such an adversarial position and if, in his capacity as Speaker of the House, he actually has standing to sue the President.

The timing of Boehner’s announcement has led some to ask “So is this the result of the Cantor loss?” The answer, however, is more complex. Certainly Cantor’s defeat is a contributing factor. He was after all among those who met the night of Obama’s inauguration in 2009 to plot the new President’s downfall. It must be galling for him that he is forced to leave Congress before achieving that goal so he may well be pushing for stronger and more damning action while he is still there.

Cantor’s primary defeat also led to McCarthy holding closed-door meetings with tea party members, promising them all kinds of support in order to secure their votes in the election for House Majority Leader. In a Daily Kos article, I looked at how these promises to the tea party has imperiled the Export-Import Bank but it wasn’t the only promise McCarthy made to them. It’s clear from what he’s said publicly that his positions are motivated by his need to keep in their good graces in order to retain his newly-acquired position come the re-election in November.

There’s no doubt that Boehner has been affected by the leadership shuffle. In a letter to House members, Boehner wrote that he will bring to the House floor a resolution for legislation that would authorize the lawsuit in July – the final month of Cantor’s majority leadership. Boehner’s also suddenly reversed his long-standing support for the Export-Import Bank to align with McCarthy’s new tea party position. They may not have been able to elect one of their own as majority leader but the tea party has the next best thing and a very loud, persistent voice. It is very likely that Boehner’s latest announcement is an effort to appease them while offering a farewell gift of appeasement to Cantor. But it places him in a precarious position. As Sir Winston Churchill said: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

Further complicating the situation for Boehner is the question whether or not he has standing to sue the President. I consulted the Cornell Law Department website and found:

Member or legislator standing has been severely curtailed, although not quite abolished, in Raines v. Bird. Several members… alleging standing based on the theory that the statute adversely affected their constitutionally prescribed lawmaking power. Emphasizing its use of standing doctrine to maintain separation-of-powers principles, the Court adhered to its holdings that, in order to possess the requisite standing, a person must establish that he has a “personal stake” in the dispute and that the alleged injury suffered is particularized as to him. Neither requirement, the Court held, was met by these legislators. First, the members did not suffer a particularized loss that distinguished them from their colleagues or from Congress as an entity. Second, the Members did not claim that they had deprived of anything to which they were personally entitled.

The loss of political power, as opposed to the loss of a private right, was not deemed by the Court to be injurious and in light of that ruling it is hard to see how Boehner and the Members who support his proposed resolution could have standing.

What is certain is that it will not be unanimous. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has already stated that she will vote against a legal challenge to Obama’s powers, noting:

“He hasn’t come anywhere near what Republican presidents have done on executive orders. I make of it as subterfuge – as I’ve said they are doing nothing here and so they have to give some aura of activity.”

It is highly probable that every House Democrat will follow her lead and quite possibly a handful of Republicans as well. In that case, even if Boehner gets a majority vote on his resolution, he cannot claim in a court filing to be representing the House; such a lawsuit would necessarily have to be restricted to only those partisan Members who support the intent to sue. That places the lawsuit exactly in the Raines v. Bird situation, a case which spectacularly failed.

When this lawsuit also fails, the tea party caucus are going to be very upset – and angry. They will see this lawsuit as an attempt by Boehner to lead them up the political garden path and away from impeachment which is what they really want and what Boehner is peddling hard to avoid. “This is not about impeachment,” he said in his press conference.

 

For Cantor, the tea party and all those involved in the plot to sabotage Obama’s presidency, impeachment is the objective. From the Washington Post’s Speaker Boehner’s Obama impeachment dress rehearsal:

Michael Grunwald’s book, released in August 2012, added new information that extends the timeline of Republican recalcitrance. The Post’s Greg Sargent found the ah-ha paragraphs on page 207.

Biden says that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any cooperation on many votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators, who said, `Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ he recalls. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’” Biden says.

The vice president says he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along these lines.

The plan all along has been to crash the Obama agenda and then climb on top of the wreckage and seize power. Not only are Republicans complicit in the “failures” they rail against, but they are also the reason the president has had to resort to executive action to get some things done.

It is the President’s effective solutions to their obstructionism and attempts to annihilate his agenda that has led to their increased frustration, anger and obsession disorder. The question has now become when will they impeach rather than if they will impeach and Boehner, unwittingly or knowingly, has put it in play.

41
Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
8 Comment threads
33 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
NWGuyTParrishKalimapinkpantherozMurphTheSurf3 Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
NWGuy
Member
NWGuy

“… the Court adhered to its holdings that, in order to possess the requisite standing, a person must establish that he has a “personal stake” in the dispute and that the alleged injury suffered is particularized as to him.”

My understanding of lawsuits is that there has be injury. I don’t see where Boehner nor the HOR has been injured by anything done by the POTUS. Suing because you don’t like what the other party is doing has no grounds.

However, as alluded to above about the POTUS suing on behalf go the people, I’m sure that the lack of action on behalf of the HOR in performing their duty or just the fact that they are not meeting their job descriptions yet are still costing taxpayers, may be enough. Possibly, even the publicity of such a suit may have an effect.

Kalima
Admin

Hello Mopshell, and welcome to The Planet. Just wanted to thank you for an excellent first post and sincerely hope it will be one of many. You laid it out so simply that even a European like me can at least understand some of the mysterious workings of the U.S. government, which is often very dark and confusing.

Thanks once again, it was a pleasure to read.

pinkpantheroz
Member

Excuse me if this is a simplistic, naive question, but can anyone tell me who the hell gave Boehner a mandate from the people to instigate a lawsuit against the POTUS? And who the hell will pay for it? Surely not We, the People. The President should make an Executive Order (hee hee) preventing funding for this load of shite. and make the Kochs pay for it!

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

Nice overview…the politics, the law, issues of governance all doing some crazy tango.

Here are the big points that stand out for me:

Boehner has one goal- keep his speakership. He does whatever he has to do to accomplish this. So, believing that impeachment, which the Tea Party dearly wants, would do to him what it did to Newt Gingrich- ruin him…he has come up with this little bauble, a lawsuit, to focus their attention.

The lawsuit gambit will also give the appearance of a House doing something- stopping a tyrannical president- to counter the current impression of a Congress of no good, do nothings.

Now—- as to suit…standing is an issue but there is another….Can the House act without the Senate…Bills are not passed into law/resolution/action by just one House. Both must concur AND the President must sign the approved action. OH boy….how the hell is that going to work?

It is not. The Constitution has ONE remedy for those who do as the House says that Obama is doing…..impeachment….and that is NOT something Boehner wants his name attached too.

TParrish
Member

Hi MurphTheSurf3,
Of course, Boehner doesn’t have to actually file a lawsuit. He just has to say he plans to do so, and the tea party contingent, as unaware that he cannot do so as they are of almost everything that can and cannot be done in our government)will take it up as a rallying cry. The lack of a lawsuit will be spun as a gigantic liberal conspiracy to quash their rights, and proof that Obama is coming for their guns.

The conservatives have elected morons.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

The TP contingent operates in a bubble wherein the State Based Articles of Confederation were never replaced by a Federal Constitution. In that world any federal action is suspect. They will not question that which is at the heart of their political philosophy. Where Boehner is dead wrong is believing that the threat of lawsuit will be sufficient red eat to keep the TP satiated…not even close.

PollyTics
Member
PollyTics

Might we be able to sue Boehner for stupidity?

monicaangela
Member

If we started with Boehner, the court dockets would be filled for years to come, why? Just think about it, Boehner is the leader of the Republicn part in the House, the speaker of the House how long would it take to sue those who are considered lesser than Boehner, years, decades..l wonder….

PollyTics
Member
PollyTics

Thanks for your time Monica, but this time I was really just “attempting” levity.

monicaangela
Member

I figured you were, but you’ll get to know me eventually, I never miss an opportunity… 😉

PollyTics
Member
PollyTics

I’m looking forward to it Monica 🙂

sillylittleme
Member

The President should countersue on behalf of the American people. After all, the House hasn’t done a bit of work. As part of the suit he should demand that they pay back their salaries and benefits that the taxpayers have given them. They have not earned them.

Nirek
Member

SLM, I second that motion!

jjgravitas
Member
jjgravitas

Hear hear! If anyone should be sued it should be the House of Reps. But I don’t see how any court would listen to this suit. Over executive orders? All presidents do them and nearly all of them have done more executive orders than Pres. Obama has, so there is nothing to argue here. Boner should start packing his bags.

James Michael Brodie
Member

Amazing. If the GOP succeeds in getting rid of Obama, I see two possible outcomes:

1. People become disenchanted (primarily the young and people of color) and walk away. This is what the GOP is hoping for — to send a message to the “others” that are not welcome or wanted.

2. Those same folks will become very angry over what they will perceive as a political lynching of Obama and take out their anger at the polls, wiping away those who brought Obama down.

My one wish back in 2008 was that Barack Hussein Obama survived his four or eight years in the White House and not leave behind a widow and two fatherless daughters. That is still part of my prayer.

But even I could not imagine the kind of animosity this man was going to face that has had less to do with his policies and more to do with his identity. A trip over to Yahoo News will confirm that this is not about a few passed laws or executive orders; rather about a large part of our nation that cannot stand that this man has been elected. Twice.

I recall talking with my father and my uncle the night of Obama’s first win. Both had worn the uniform — my father a 29-year Air Force “lifer” and my uncle a medic in Vietnam. The sense of pride that they felt at seeing a Black man rise to a position they could not even have dreamt of was inspring. For them, it validated the sacrifices they made on behalf of the country they loved.

Today, both men feel a sense of betrayal that my words cannot capture. They fought for an ideal that seems further and further from their grasp.

Nirek
Member

Jim, I echo your prayer that President Obama completes his eight years and his wife and he have a wonderful life after his term. That his children enjoy their Dad for many years. I think he has done a decent job under difficult circumstances. Meeting obstruction head on.
Peace, my friend.

James Michael Brodie
Member

I think history will regard him more kindly than the present, Nirek. I can’t help but wonder if he has any regrets about pursuing this job…

Nirek
Member

James, do you like Jim or James?
I agree that President Obama will be seen in the history books as a great President. While his predecessor will be seen as the worst!

James Michael Brodie
Member

Actually, my friends either call me Michael or Brodie.

James is every other male in the family – my father, his father, his father, some uncles, a few cousins…

Nirek
Member

Brodie, if you don’t mind I’ll call you Brodie. I feel like we are friends. We sure think a lot alike.

James Michael Brodie
Member

Thank you, Nirek. I feel the same way, my friend… 🙂

sillylittleme
Member

I’m not much for prayer, but I do pray every day for that man’s safety. Although in truth he is safe because no way do they want Biden stepping in.

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

Conviction in the Senate requires 2/3 vote….no way that can happen so it is stunt.

phoenixdoglover
Member

Yes, this lawsuit seems to be a recently concocted and somewhat harebrained stalling tactic. As you suggest , perhaps just a prelude to a run at impeachment. In the political context, I see the timing as all-important. It’s too late in 2014 for impeachment; the crescendo needs to come at the right time in 2016 to taint the Democratic party candidates with guilt by association.

I don’t know how the GOP could be any more cynical – but when the agenda is destruction, there are so many paths to follow.