US Politics: Check with a Court before you see your Doctor

[awesome possum]

The fun doesn't stop there. A day after suing Obama for not getting congressional approval, House Republicans tell Obama to act on the border crisis... without congressional approval

In a statement following the decision to abruptly scrap a vote on the measure, Boehner and his fellow GOP leaders tried to put the onus back on Obama, saying the president had the power to act unilaterally, "without the need for congressional action," to respond to the crisis.

There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries."

Who needs Ringling Brothers when you have the best circus money can buy ready to entertain on a whim when they're not on vacation. Of course to note is that they only want Obama to act on his own if he does what they want: send troops to scare children and then send those scared children back home. Anything else and RABBLERABBLERABBLE

[MerenthaClone]

you are right. More, the republicans are suing Obama to get him to enforce a law they absolutely loathe (ACA) .

So, if he complies, the republicans become responsible for getting the ACA fully in motion.

Whole thing is political theater. If Obama starts to comply, the republicans could drop the suit, but look like major idiots.

Actually, its even better than that. The particular part that they want him to enforce is something that they hammered on as being bad, so asked him repeatedly to delay it. The Republicans are suing Obama to enforce a provision of a law they loathe, and that specific provision was one that they tried to have delayed. So he did.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Some hilarity for y'all:

http://gawker.com/language-school-blogger-fired-for-writing-about-homopho-1613916147

It's just ... it's amazingly stupid and bigoted in a way that I can't stop laughing at.

I hope for the employer's sake he steers clear of homogenised milk.

And he'd better go and sack all blue eyed people (they're homozygous!).

In fact, just sack every human being. They're all a bunch of homo sapiens anyway.

[Fez]

you are right. More, the republicans are suing Obama to get him to enforce a law they absolutely loathe (ACA) .

So, if he complies, the republicans become responsible for getting the ACA fully in motion.

Whole thing is political theater. If Obama starts to comply, the republicans could drop the suit, but look like major idiots.

He already is starting to comply. The employer mandate is scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2015, presumably before the lawsuit is completed, and the IRS has already started releasing the various documentation for businesses to prepare.

[Commodore]

A law they loathe and have claimed for years is unconstitutional. "Enforce this unconstitutional law that we don't want you to enact, or we'll sue you for not enforcing it!"

Republican anti-Obama logic at its finest.

Actually, its even better than that. The particular part that they want him to enforce is something that they hammered on as being bad, so asked him repeatedly to delay it. The Republicans are suing Obama to enforce a provision of a law they loathe, and that specific provision was one that they tried to have delayed. So he did.

Here we see two examples of how quickly ideas like rule of law can be eroded.

"Obama is enacting the outcome you wanted, why are you upset? I thought you hated this law, why do you care if he's not doing what it requires him to do?"

His executive agencies are illegally passing hundreds of rules without notifying Congress.

Mass executive amnesty will be the high point to date of this era of lawlessness.

Obama is like a slumping A-Rod in 2004, wanting the GOP to "come at me bro" (even welcoming it at his rallies). But as Varitek was rumored to have said, "we don't throw at .260 hitters".

Throwing at Obama with impeachment will do no good, and the GOP knows this. They will just let him flail and troll and do his increasingly tiresome "u mad?" schtick at rallies, and wait for November.

[Inigima]

From a legal perspective I actually share Commodore's concern -- I've voiced that concern in the past, even about outcomes I liked, like not enforcing DOMA. Declining to enforce the law is a problem.

From an electoral perspective, I think this might be a win for Democrats. The electorate does not, generally, give much of a shit or even know much about the legislative process and is mostly concerned about results, and as an article I read yesterday -- I don't remember where -- said, this is a good response to grumpy, infantile demands that the president "lead" despite the fact that he can't do very much if Congress won't act.

[DanteGabriel]

I think the Executive has too much power and it's increased over time. FDR massively expanded federal power to create the New Deal. It goes back far longer than Barack Obama, who is no more or less imperious a President than anyone who's come before. I'm just a biased liberal, but I give him credit for doing what needs to be done to sidestep an openly do-nothing Congress to implement a flawed but reasonably working public health care plan, rather than using creative interpretations of Executive power to launch invasions or torture people.

[TrackerNeil]

It goes back far longer than Barack Obama, who is no more or less imperious a President than anyone who's come before. I'm just a biased liberal, but I give him credit for doing what needs to be done to sidestep an openly do-nothing Congress to implement a flawed but reasonably working public health care plan, rather than using creative interpretations of Executive power to launch invasions or torture people.

The thing to remember is that if Congress does not like the way the president is enforcing the laws, that august body is free to act to change that. Unfortunately, The Republican House majority is not willing to cut the kind of necessary deal with Senate Democrats, so instead they resort to silly lawsuits, shutdowns, defaults, etc.

[aceluby]

The one thing about this complaint of 'illegal rules' is that they have been submitted to the GAO, are available to congress online, the only step not done is delivered a physical copy to the members of congress, and since its inception nearly 20 years ago only ONE rule was reversed.

I'm all for reigning in the executive branch, but to be up in arms about this over war crimes, illegal torture, or lying to start a war; this seems like a fairly mild issue.

[Wise Fool]

Here we see two examples of how quickly ideas like rule of law can be eroded.

"Obama is enacting the outcome you wanted, why are you upset? I thought you hated this law, why do you care if he's not doing what it requires him to do?"

His executive agencies are illegally passing hundreds of rules without notifying Congress.

Mass executive amnesty will be the high point to date of this era of lawlessness.

This lawsuit is regarding the ACA, specifically the employer mandate. It's not about your conspiracy theories about a creeping tyranny, although I see how you can misconstrue one for the other in your enthusiastic glee to shriek about how the sky is falling.

[Paladin of Ice]

Some hilarity for y'all:

http://gawker.com/language-school-blogger-fired-for-writing-about-homopho-1613916147

It's just ... it's amazingly stupid and bigoted in a way that I can't stop laughing at.

God knows what they'll do when they realize how many homo sapiens are running around their campus in homogenous groups... especially those blue eyed homozygous freaks with homologous chromosomes.

[TrackerNeil]

From a legal perspective I actually share Commodore's concern -- I've voiced that concern in the past, even about outcomes I liked, like not enforcing DOMA. Declining to enforce the law is a problem.

To me, it depends what law is not being enforced. If the president decides that federal investigators will no longer investigate civil rights violations, that's a problem. If the president elects to delay enforcement of the employer mandate -- which I believe is the topic of this ill-considered lawsuit -- in order to prevent harm to businesses, that sounds more reasonable.

[DanteGabriel]

Failure of border bill in House has Cruz's fingerprints on it:

But the tea party Texan is once again smack in the middle of a House Republican debacle. With a reach as wide as his state, the freshman senator has his arm around conservative House Republicans. He has been lobbying them over Chick-fil-A and pizza to change the House bill “to end Obama’s amnesty.” By that he means President Obama’s 2012 executive action to defer deportation for certain children of undocumented immigrants.

Senator Cruz believes that the deferment sent the signal to children in Central America that the door is open, sparking the influx of child migrants that prompted Mr. Obama to ask Congress for $3.7 billion in emergency funding. The problem can't be fixed until that amnesty ends, he says.

To satisfy Cruz-ers, the House planned a separate vote Thursday on a second bill that prohibits the federal government from deferring deportation of certain undocumented immigrants.

But that effort apparently did not go far enough for some, and the whole Republican plan to address the child-migrant crisis in the House came crashing down on what was supposed to be the last day before summer recess.

Many Republicans, who had wanted to be able to go home and tell constituents they were doing something to solve the problem were, to put it mildly, angered at the unexpected collapse – and steamed at Cruz and another Republican senator, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, for interfering with House business.

“It’s kind of shocking to me that some people are willing to turn their voting cards over to the Senate,” said Rep. Devin Nunes ® of California to a tight scrum of reporters after both bills were pulled. He blamed what he called “the exotic club” – a group of legislators who “just don’t want to vote for anything,” and who he said care more about their scorecards with outside conservative groups than with governing.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0731/House-border-bill-implodes-and-Ted-Cruz-stands-amid-wreckage-video

[Inigima]

To me, it depends what law is not being enforced. If the president decides that federal investigators will no longer investigate civil rights violations, that's a problem. If the president elects to delay enforcement of the employer mandate -- which I believe is the topic of this ill-considered lawsuit -- in order to prevent harm to businesses, that sounds more reasonable.

So it's a problem if the president declines to enforce policy you like?

[TrackerNeil]

So it's a problem if the president declines to enforce policy you like?

That's a radical reinterpretation of the text.

I think it's a problem if the president declines to enforce policies that protect people from harm. However, delaying the employer mandate really doesn't cause anyone serious harm; it's intended to smooth over a period of transition. I guess you can say that my definition is subjective, to which I can only respond that much public policy is subjective in nature. However, I think Obama could reasonably defend delaying the employer mandate, whereas he could not defend, say, telling all EPA staffers to cease enforcing the Clean Water Act.

[Shryke]

That's a radical reinterpretation of the text.

I think it's a problem if the president declines to enforce policies that protect people from harm. However, delaying the employer mandate really doesn't cause anyone serious harm; it's intended to smooth over a period of transition. I guess you can say that my definition is subjective, to which I can only respond that much public policy is subjective in nature. However, I think Obama could reasonably defend delaying the employer mandate, whereas he could not defend, say, telling all EPA staffers to cease enforcing the Clean Water Act.

It's just like the talk of police/prosecutorial discretion in the policing thread. At some point, every system could probably use discretionary power in over to grease the gears. Sometimes that can go really badly though.

Generally the point of an executive is to take laws and implement them, with latitude over how to do that. Obama is using executive discretion in this case for exactly what it's supposed to be for: to make the system work better by controlling exactly how it's implement and in a direct and efficient fashion (ie - without the need for clearing all sorts of procedural hurdles)

People can abuse this power, but in this case Obama isn't. He's doing what he's supposed to.

[TrackerNeil]

People can abuse this power, but in this case Obama isn't. He's doing what he's supposed to.

Yup. And if he isn't, then Congress is free to legislate to stop him.

[Fez]

Yup. And if he isn't, then Congress is free to legislate to stop him.

Well, let's not overstate the power of Congress either. Unless there's overwhelming consensus between the parties, Congress will never have the votes to override a President's veto of legislation that curbs the executive branch's power. Instead, Congress needs to adopt the tactics the GOP has used, obstruction, to curb that power. The GOP has wildly overused the tactic, and nearly always without cause, but that is the tool to be used.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

That's a radical reinterpretation of the text.

I think it's a problem if the president declines to enforce policies that protect people from harm. However, delaying the employer mandate really doesn't cause anyone serious harm; it's intended to smooth over a period of transition. I guess you can say that my definition is subjective, to which I can only respond that much public policy is subjective in nature. However, I think Obama could reasonably defend delaying the employer mandate, whereas he could not defend, say, telling all EPA staffers to cease enforcing the Clean Water Act.

Ultimately what you're saying here is that the President should have the power to do the things you like but not have the power to do the things you don't like. That's obviously unworkable, we agree to enforce certain rules of process because democracy depends on them.

Now, I don't actually know whether or not Obama is on firm legal ground with delaying the employer mandate. A great deal of discretionary power is given to the executive branch in a lot of areas of public policy, and I'm not expert on what the actual limits are in which areas. For all I know, Obama clearly does have the authority under the law to delay the employer mandate. But if presented with an argument that he does not, I wouldn't shrug it off because I like the result.

I, personally, would like to see our political process changed so that the President would not have enormous discretion in interpreting and enforcing law. I'd like to see Presidential power completely eliminated. Until then I acknowledge that there laws which grant the President power and constrain it too, and it's important to insist on constraints to that power in the interest of fairness and democracy (even as insufficient a democracy as ours is).

[Shryke]

Well, let's not overstate the power of Congress either. Unless there's overwhelming consensus between the parties, Congress will never have the votes to override a President's veto of legislation that curbs the executive branch's power. Instead, Congress needs to adopt the tactics the GOP has used, obstruction, to curb that power. The GOP has wildly overused the tactic, and nearly always without cause, but that is the tool to be used.

Congressional obstruction only enhances the power of the executive though.

I'm not sure what specific method beyond legislation you are referring to that Congress has at it's deposal.