Are we headed toward a constitutional "crisis" with this Republican lawsuit?

[kentuck]

The Supreme Court has refused to get involved in such disputes in the past. But this is a different time. We have a Supreme Court that is highly partisan and inclined to vote in partisan ways, just as they did with Hobby Lobby.

Just for good measure, Harry Reid should call for a vote in the Senate also. The Supremes should also see an opposing viewpoint on this matter. Then, in effect, the Supremes would have to rule in favor of the House over the Senate. That would create a sticky situation.

So, what would the Republicans win if they won the "lawsuit"? Would they roll the law back and deny 5 million people any health coverage? Or would they make the President "promise" not to do it anymore in the future? Have they thought this through??

[randys1]

1. Maybe the ten million with healthcare and the 100 million with better healthcare should

threaten the republican party to stop their terrorism

or else

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. I do wonder what they are seeking ultimately

I would guess that they would seek to have the employer mandate implemented faster (which they believe will destroy ACA), but it might already (probably will) be implemented by the time their lawsuit gets heard (assuming it gets heard and not dismissed). But, so what if the employer mandate gets implemented? It was going to be implemented at some point, so..............

[misterhighwasted]

3. They would use it to further their mission to Impeach the President.

They won't do any more until after the election in November. They need control of the Senate & more for this to happen.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. Control of the Senate is irrelevant

Last edited Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Even under the rosiest circumstances, they will lack the votes to convict. I wouldn't put it past them to impeach him anyway- to leave a "stain" on his Presidency and put the next Democratic candidate under a cloud ("Don't trust Democrats for the WH because we just impeached two of 'em over their abuses of power!&quot

[misterhighwasted]

17. Yes correct. House Repukes will do just that & the teabag constituents will party like New Years Eve

The only thing they will have done in four years. But to the Teabillies back home it is all they needed to do.

Its about firing up the crazy crowd, bringing in donations, & leaving a permanent stain, as you said, on Barack Obama's Presidency.

The only order they were given from the Top, the day they were sworn into Congress.
Mission Accomplished & they will be paid a handsome bonus for their dirty work.

[HooptieWagon]

4. Yes, when an entire Circuit Court dies from laughter. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Here's a pretty good summation of the issues, at hand ...

Though from a pretty right wing source, I think they accurately argue the sides, even as they favor the right wing argument ... and com to the correct conclusion ... If this case gets heard, it'll be highly unusual and unlikely.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/06/constitution-check-could-the-house-sue-the-president-for-refusing-to-carry-out-the-laws/

[kentuck]

8. Thanks for the link!

[HereSince1628]

7. IMO they are looking for an end-run around the senate

The senate would surely not find Obama guilty. They'd rather have a conservative judge.

The tea-party has done nothing but look for end-runs around the rules and traditions for years. This surprises me not even a little bit.

[GoCubsGo]

13. They also think they'll avoid the type of backlash they got after the Clinton impeachment.

And, they would be wrong. The Dems were already setting fund-raising records at the mere mention of the lawsuit. And, people of all political stripes are not going to be happy with this colossal waste of their tax dollars. It will blow up right in their faces, and I can't wait to see it.

[MohRokTah]

9. Nope, it will be dismissed after the first motion.

The Administration will move to dismiss on the basis that the House and Speaker Boehner have no standing to bring the lawsuit.

The judge will dismiss.

No appeals court will hear an appeal.

By the time it gets to the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS will not grant Cert.

The constitution is very clear. If the House truly believes the president is acting in an unlawful manner, they must exercise their power as defined in Article 1., Section 2., Clause 5 and Article II., Section 4. of the United States Constitution. The courts have no power in such a matter and the House has no standing to bring such a lawsuit when a constitutional remedy already exists.

[kentuck]

11. I think you are correct...

...in that, there is a constitutional remedy already. If they believe it is that serious, then they have an obligation to bring impeachment charges. If not, then they should STFU.

[former9thward]

10. No.

Members of the House sued Johnson during Vietnam over sending men to Vietnam without an act of war. The courts dismissed all of them. Something similar will happen here.

[blkmusclmachine]

12. 5 Fascists on the SCOTUS. Well interpreted!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. If I understand the nature of the lawsuit correctly

they are suing to have the employer mandate enforced -- even though they oppose the employer mandate (EM).

They believe the EM will be widely unpopular and thus politically damaging to the President. There may be merits to that cynical manipulation as the President has obviously delayed implementation and who would do that if they believed it would be the awesomest thing ever.

Still, it's a cynical lawsuit.

On the upside if some court says, "Yes, the law must be enforced as written" then we can drive a stake through the heart of signing statements.

[spanone]

15. i have no faith in this supreme court. rethugs would win the road to impeachment.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

16. There is no lawsuit - republicans hate frivolous lawsuits

Don't they?