Will Boehner’s lawsuit target non-enforcement of Obamacare?

posted at 8:41 pm on July 7, 2014 by Noah Rothman

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is reportedly planning to put a vote authorizing a lawsuit against the Obama administration before the House toward the end of the month. Since it was announced, there has been much discussion about the efficacy of this lawsuit, with commentators on the left and the right labeling it a “stunt.” Jazz Shaw has the definitive take on this debate.

While much ink has been spilt debating force of the House lawsuit as a political weapon, but comparatively little has been devoted to discussing on what grounds Boehner will sue the administration. With a variety of executive actions and selectively enforced statues to choose from, Boehner has a veritable embarrassment of riches of issues on which to base his suit.

With that in mind, Republicans are reportedly factoring in political considerations:

“Sources on and off Capitol Hill have doubts that Boehner would target any immigration action, a move that could alienate Hispanic voters and give political fodder to those who already seek to paint the Republican party as nativist,” Roll Call’s Daniel Newhauser reported on Monday.

With the political health of the Republican Party in mind, Boehner is reportedly likely to focus on the Obama administration’s failure to faithfully enforce his signature legislative achievement: the Affordable Care Act.

A more likely scenario, sources noted, would be for Boehner to target one of Obama’s executive actions relating to the Affordable Care Act. The administration has delayed key deadlines in the law’s implementation, for instance the mandate that employers provide health coverage to their employees.

Earlier this year, the administration also quietly changed provisions in the law making billions of taxpayer dollars available as risk insurance in case companies lose money by providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act.

Newhauser quotes George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley who suggests that a suit centered on the ACA’s various delays and relaxed enforcement directives which have altered the original law passed by Congress in 2010 is most likely to be heard in court. Turley added, however, that the suit will have to be narrow in scope if the courts take up a dispute between the legislative and executive branches – something the judiciary usually resists.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“Sources on and off Capitol Hill have doubts that Boehner would target any immigration action, a move that could alienate Hispanic voters …”

Well, duh.

I mean, once the R’s have lost their most important base — the Hispanic vote — they’re toast …

ShainS on July 7, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Bonehead’s lawsuit wont do anything, it is all Kabuki theater, Obama will be out of office years before this lawsuit is even given a hearing date.

oscarwilde on July 7, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Illegal immigration IS AN OBAMACARE ISSUE of highest magnitude.

HopeHeFails on July 7, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Illegal immigration IS AN OBAMACARE ISSUE of highest magnitude.

HopeHeFails on July 7, 2014 at 8:47 PM

300,000 people crossing your border in a couple months time isn’t illegal immigration, it’s a Fluking Invasion.

oscarwilde on July 7, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Who else thinks that Boehner just jumped on this to quell the base after the Mississippi disaster without really thinking it through?

joekenha on July 7, 2014 at 8:54 PM

$5 says that when he signs “Hussein” the “i” is dotted with a heart.

rogerb on July 7, 2014 at 8:55 PM

IMPEACH THE SOB! LET HARRY REID DEAL WITH THE FALLOUT!

GarandFan on July 7, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Who else thinks that Boehner just jumped on this to quell the base after the Mississippi disaster without really thinking it through?

joekenha on July 7, 2014 at 8:54 PM

That and throw in Eric Cantors loss, and yea this is all about trying to deceive people before Nov.

oscarwilde on July 7, 2014 at 8:58 PM

This lawsuit is unnecessary if the GOP were willing to do their constitutional duty and protect our nation instead of worrying about optics of impeaching the half-black p.o.s. occupying the White house.

SouthernGent on July 7, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Bonehead’s lawsuit wont do anything, it is all Kabuki theater, Obama will be out of office years before this lawsuit is even given a hearing date.

oscarwilde on July 7, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Agreed.

The Senate will never convict, but F*ck ‘Em!

I like ThePrimordialOrderedPair’s idea: have the House focus on nothing else but impeaching him — one-count at a time, continutally — whether daily or weekly or whatever they can can manage, as there’s more than enough crimes to target.

Force him to defend himself and make his LAWLESSNESS the center of all DC news for the next two years and effectively shutdown the TRAITOR and his lawless executive branch …

ShainS on July 7, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Force him to defend himself and make his LAWLESSNESS the center of all DC news for the next two years and effectively shutdown the TRAITOR and his lawless executive branch …

ShainS on July 7, 2014 at 8:59 PM

That would require something that the GOPe has shown zero evidence of for at least 30 years… Testicular fortitude.

oscarwilde on July 7, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Force him to defend himself and make his LAWLESSNESS the center of all DC news for the next two years and effectively shutdown the TRAITOR and his lawless executive branch …

ShainS on July 7, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Don’t underestimate the power of distortion that the MSM wields.

Rix on July 7, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Do you really think you have to put (R-OH) after his name?

We know who he is.

Probably better than you do.

wolly4321 on July 7, 2014 at 9:07 PM

It’s merely designed to make it look as if he’s doing something. I’m sure that’s as far as it’s going. It won’t matter anyway. The marxist government will do what they want. They don’t even have to pretend to follow any laws.

crankyoldlady on July 7, 2014 at 9:10 PM

That would require something that the GOPe has shown zero evidence of for at least 30 years… Testicular fortitude.

oscarwilde on July 7, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Don’t underestimate the power of distortion that the MSM wields.

Rix on July 7, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Present reality forbids me from disagreeing.

At SOME point — if they want to avoid the growing likelihood of becoming fertilizer for the Tree of Liberty — these guys are going to have to find a courageous leader and finally push back.

This COULD be one of those opportune times, but — of course — I won’t hold my breath …

ShainS on July 7, 2014 at 9:12 PM

That would require something that the GOPe has shown zero evidence of for at least 30 years… Testicular fortitude.

oscarwilde on July 7, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Clinton was impeached in 1998 was it? Also, Newt got welfare reform done. That was is the mid to late 90s as well.
So 30 years is not a valid claim.

astonerii on July 7, 2014 at 9:21 PM

~~~ if the courts take up a dispute between the legislative and executive branches –something the judiciary usually resists.

Some history of cases and their outcomes would be nice.

wolly4321 on July 7, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Only in RINO land…

JellyToast on July 7, 2014 at 9:26 PM


A suit centered on the ACA’s various delays
and relaxed enforcement directives which
have ALTERED the original law passed by Congress
______________________________________

ObamaCare’s had an ulterior motive:
forging a PERMANENT Democratic majority.

The law creates a huge INFRASTRUCTURE for
enrolling millions of people not just in insurance

but also for food stamps, housing assistance and
other welfare programs — and registering them to vote.

Here are the pillars of this CORRUPT SCHEME.

None of the minor fixes Republicans are discussing
comes even close to sweeping away this CORRUPTION.

……………………………………………………………………..
http://nypost.com/2014/04/30/gop-foolish-to-think-obamacare-is-fixable/

http://nypost.com/author/betsy-mccaughey/

______________________________________

http://www.ZeroHEDGE.COM
……………………………………………………………………..
http://www.RealClearPOLITICS.com

http://www.RealClearMARKETS.com
……………………………………………………………………..

Global HAWK on July 7, 2014 at 9:28 PM

Gee, if you look at the polls (assuming they’re for real), voters really don’t like illegal immigration.

formwiz on July 7, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Gee, if you look at the polls (assuming they’re for real), voters really don’t like illegal immigration.

formwiz on July 7, 2014 at 9:31 PM

The whole idea is to replace those polled with more reliable Democratic voters.

slickwillie2001 on July 7, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Do you really think you have to put (R-OH) after his name?

We know who he is.

Probably better than you do.

wolly4321 on July 7, 2014 at 9:07 PM

..SOB should go after his name!

JugEarsButtHurt on July 7, 2014 at 9:49 PM

This is all just a prelude to GOP offering up a “Reformed ACA”. RINOs think they have a winner there, but it is a boat anchor.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on July 7, 2014 at 10:08 PM

oscarwilde on July 7, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Clinton was impeached in 1998 was it? Also, Newt got welfare reform done. That was is the mid to late 90s as well.
So 30 years is not a valid claim.

astonerii on July 7, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Yes, and pray tell me, what exactly happened to Newt for daring to try to show a little courage? Oh yea… his own party betrayed him. You lose.

oscarwilde on July 7, 2014 at 10:19 PM

I find this to be a distraction.

S. D. on July 7, 2014 at 10:31 PM

The best way to repeal a bad law is to vigorously enforce it.

- Abraham Lincoln

Grammar Nazi on July 8, 2014 at 7:02 AM

Boehner isn’t limited to one suit. Just sue one item at a time. You want to sue on the items that you intend to follow-up with impeachment when you get the ruling. It becomes a court-endorsed impeachment.

Buddahpundit on July 8, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Re: Photo of signature….real shaky hand on that “O”…

albill on July 8, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Apparently, when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he’d been doing a bunch of things right beforehand; so, before signing he rested his arm, so the signature would be smooth. Otherwise, “they will say that I hesitated.” I think of that whenever I see the picture of the Obamacare signature you have on the front page.

Tzetzes on July 8, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Boehner’s Lawsuit SHOULD target the FACT that the Constitution makes it clear — ONLY CONGRESS can modify a Law once it has been signed, and Obama has ILLEGALLY modified the ACA over 40 times for political purposes and to ensure it SURVIVED.

1) The Obama administration argued the monetary penalty for NOT buying ACA insurance was NOT a TAX; however, during the SCOTUS hearing (with Chief Justice Robert’s Un-Constitutional Over-reach) the argment – and thus the law – was changed to make the ‘Fine’ a ‘Tax’. This was a modification of the law perpetrated in the courtroom and NOT in Congress! CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION!

2) EVERY waiver signed by Obama was a modification of the ACA. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION!

3) The CONTRACEPTIVE MANDATE forced on religious institutions, even those such as Hobby Lobby – as validated recently by the SCOTUS – was a CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION! (Since this mandate was part of the core ACA bill, ONLY CONGRESS could make changes to individual pieces of the ACA; however, the Obama administration – and Chief Justice Roberts – RE-WROTE the ACA themselves to preserve the bill. What SHOULD have happened, as Justice Kennedy declared, was the whole ACA should have been struck down and Congress forced to rw-write / Pass another ACA.
—Kennedy pointed out the fact that Roberts over-stepped his bounds because it is NOT the SCOTUS’s job to re-write laws, which is what Roberts did when he pointed out that the Obama administration’s ACA ‘FINE’ was UN-Constitutional and what the Obama administration MUST have meant (changing the Federal Govt’s argument) was the ‘Fine’ was Really a ‘Tax’.
—Kennedy also accurately pointed out that once Roberts changed the ‘Fine’ to a ‘tax’ on Day 1 of the hearing, the trial should have STOPPED RIGHT THEN because BY LAW a law suit regarding a tax can NOT be heard by the courts until the tax is actually levied against someone, which it had NOT been yet.

easyt65 on July 8, 2014 at 11:47 AM