Steve Benen correctly nails Boehner in this commentary ~ this lawsuit is even dumber than the extended and repeated defense of DOMA, which was clearly unconstitutional to anyone with working brain cells ~ we-the-taxpayers paid mega bucks for the DOMA defense lawsuits and we-the-taxpayers will be paying for this one as well ~ my newest fantasy is the court kicking out this case, saying "don't waste our time or taxpayers money" ~ I admit it's a long shot, but it could happen ~ there are some "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Boehner readies frivolous anti-Obama lawsuit
06/25/14 04:24 PM—Updated 06/25/14 06:22 PM
By Steve Benen

In early December, Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) appeared on a far-right radio talk show to talk up an odd idea: the United States was in the midst of a “Constitutional crisis,” the congressman said, making it necessary for a new lawsuit against President Obama.

As Coffman put it, the president wasn’t “going through Congress” to advance his agenda, so it was time to go to court. “I may have to do it,” he said at the time, “or somebody may have to do it.”

The far-right Coloradan never got around to explaining what in the world he was talking about, and for that matter, he never actually filed the lawsuit to address the “crisis” he perceived. But the silly idea appears to have slowly worked its way to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).


“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,” Boehner told reporters.

Asked specifically if he’s planning to initiate a lawsuit, the Speaker replied, “I am.”

I can think of some dangerous moves Boehner has made since becoming Speaker, including threatening to trash the full faith and credit of the United States on purpose. I can also think of some reckless moves he’s made, including shutting down the government. I can even think of some irresponsible moves from the Speaker, including refusing to compromise on pretty much any area of public policy.

But I can’t think of anything quite as dumb from the last several years as this lawsuit.

Indeed, the Speaker himself couldn’t actually identify by name anything the president has done that warrants a legal challenge. Boehner is outraged by Obama’s use of executive power. And what, pray tell, has offended the Speaker? He didn’t say.

I’m sure he’ll think of something to justify his lawsuit eventually, right?

If Boehner wants to go through the motions of this little charade, it’s tempting to think such antics are irrelevant – it’s not as if these little p.r. stunts will get in the way of Congress’ non-existent legislative agenda – but let’s not forget that the Speaker’s frivolous litigation will be at the public’s expense.

That’s right, the new Republican election-year gimmick will be paid for by you and me.

This isn’t complicated: if Boehner had any evidence at all that the president’s actions were outside the law, he would have presented that evidence by now instead of rattling a weak saber.

Is this about executive orders? If so, Obama’s actions are entirely in line with his predecessors’ use of this tool that’s been around since the beginning of the republic. The only difference is, this president has used fewer executive orders than any president in over a century.


For that matter, Boehner used to like executive orders when Republican presidents made them.

Is this about executive actions? Literally nothing the president has done has even pushed the legal envelope. The right talks about shifted health care deadlines, but Bush/Cheney did the same thing. The right complains about Obama’s climate agenda, but the Supreme Court already cleared it. The right especially didn’t like the White House’s deferred action on Dream Act kids, but deferred action has been a standard move for plenty of previous administrations.

Complicating matters further, unless the Speaker’s office suddenly uncovers actual evidence of something interesting, the federal courts will probably have no interest in adjudicating a partisan tantrum launched at one branch of the federal government against another.

So if the likely lawsuit isn’t rooted in reality, substance, evidence, or law, what’s the point?

Part of this is likely the result of Republican frustration that it hasn’t stopped federal policymaking altogether. In practical terms, Boehner and other GOP lawmakers don’t just want to reject progress on areas such as civil rights, the economy, and the environment; they also want to stop the Obama administration from making progress, too.

What’s more, Republicans, lacking a policy agenda of their own and having no actual accomplishments in office, have become a little too obsessed with the notion that Obama is an out-of-control tyrant hell bent on creating a socialistic dictatorship. Boehner almost certainly realizes that his party’s rhetoric is demonstrably ridiculous, but he’s also apparently decided it’s too late to back down now.

Ultimately, though, I suspect the lawsuit is about posturing. It’s an election year and Republicans have an irrational hatred of the president. Fundraising letters need to be written, a right-wing base needs be riled up, and Fox News can only air so many Benghazi segments before their audience falls asleep.

And so Boehner, unable to explain his motivations in even rudimentary terms, has decided it’s time for a new gambit: a taxpayer-financed lawsuit, challenging a president for daring to use presidential power while a do-nothing Congress twiddles its thumbs.

We talked last week about House Republicans and the White House moving on separate tracks in separate directions: Obama would use his authority, as much as possible, to advance his priorities, while GOP lawmakers would their authority, as much as possible, to whine incessantly about “scandals” that don’t exist.

Boehner’s literally inexplicable lawsuit is obviously part of the latter. It’s an embarrassment to the institution and the nation, but at this point, that simply means more of the same.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/boehner-readies-frivolous-anti-obama-lawsuit

This perspective ROCKS ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Thursday, Jun 26, 2014 6:07 PM UTC
Boehner’s frivolous, embarrassing lawsuit impresses the Wall Street Journal
WSJ's editorial board praises Boehner's seriousness as the Speaker sets himself up for another humiliation.
Simon Maloy

The Wall Street Journal editorial board, long known for its unwavering defense of the president’s authority to spy on Americans without warrants and “the Bush Administration’s alleged ‘torture’ policies,” can’t abide by Barack Obama’s unilateral revisions to his law that gives people healthcare. In an editorial published this morning, the Journal argued that President Obama is guilty of “flagrant contempt for regular political order” by taking executive action to make changes to the Affordable Care Act and limit deportations for certain classes of undocumented immigrants. “When the executive suspends or rewrites laws across health care, drugs, immigration and so much else, elected legislators are stripped of their constitutional role,” they observe.

But the Journal is not without hope. Their sudden concern for the concentration of power in the executive branch has a new champion: Speaker John Boehner. News that Boehner intends to introduce legislation to initiate a lawsuit against the Obama administration’s executive overreach has left the Journal editorial board impressed with the Speaker’s solemn commitment to responsible government:

The Beltway press is portraying Mr. Boehner as merely serving carrion to the tea party vultures, and no doubt he hopes in part to sate the political appetites of the backbench. But we doubt he’d wager the House’s reputation, and his own, on a novelty lawsuit that the courts wouldn’t hesitate to toss as frivolous. From what we know of the Speaker’s deliberations, he’s been persuaded on the merits.

Who would have guessed that John Boehner and the House of Representatives had reputations to wager? Boehner’s personal approval rating sits at 31 percent. Congress’ approval rating is a muscular 16 percent. There’s not a whole lot either could do to make the public hate them more.

And I’m not entirely sure where the Journal got the idea that Boehner wouldn’t put himself in the positon of looking like an idiot. That’s been the story of the Boehner speakership. The failure of his “Plan B” tax bill on the eve of the fiscal cliff? An embarrassment for Boehner. The collapse of his debt proposal during last autumn’s budget crisis? An embarrassment for Boehner. The defeat of the Farm Bill last summer? An embarrassment for Boehner. Even his reelection as Speaker was a humiliating affair, marked by rebellions and protest votes. House Republicans shut down the government on his watch. The guy is a walking own-goal.

And the lawsuit itself is absolutely frivolous. It’s based on an exotic legal theory that likely won’t survive scrutiny. Even if it does somehow survive, it will take years to work through the courts, at which point Obama will be collecting huge paychecks on the lecture circuit.

That brings us to the obvious conclusion that Boehner’s suit is quite obviously about riling up angry, impeachment-happy conservatives and has nothing to do with good government. If Boehner actually cared about the legislature’s loss of power to the executive branch, he might consider exercising the power granted to the legislature by the Constitution – namely, legislating. But, as we’ve seen, most of Boehner’s attempts to legislate end up ending with him stepping on rakes.

The Wall Street Journal’s enthusiasm for the suit is similarly political. They’re not concerned about concentrated executive authority; they’re upset that it’s Obama exercising that authority and using it to do things they disagree with, like making his health care law work and not deporting immigrants.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/26/boehners_frivolous_embarrassing_lawsuit_impresses_the_wall_street_journal/

Steve Benen has been a major influence on my love for and fascination with ridicule ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Is Boehner prepared to ‘wager the House’s reputation’?
06/27/14 10:02 AM
By Steve Benen

President Obama sat down with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and fielded a question about House Speaker John Boehner’s (R) bizarre upcoming lawsuit challenging the president for using his executive powers. Obama’s response rings true: “The suit is a stunt.”

“You notice that he didn’t specifically say what exactly he was objecting to,” the president added. “I’m not going to apologize for trying to do something while they’re doing nothing,” the president added later…. What I’ve told Speaker Boehner directly is, ‘If you’re really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, why don’t you try getting something done through Congress?’ You’re going to squawk if I try to fix some parts of it administratively that are within my authority while you’re not doing anything?”

But the Speaker is not without defenders. The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal extended its unintentionally amusing support.


Look, if the Speaker were genuinely persuaded on the merits of the litigation, he would have mentioned at least one example of executive overreach to bolster his point. Indeed, if Boehner actually believed his own rhetoric, he wouldn’t have urged Obama to circumvent Congress while holding a press conference complaining about Obama circumventing Congress.

But that’s not the funny part. Rather, what’s amusing is the WSJ editorial board assuming that the upcoming lawsuit must have some merits because Boehner wouldn’t “wager the House’s reputation, and his own” on an election-year p.r. stunt.

The obvious follow-up question is, what reputation would that be?

Simon Maloy’s take mirrored my own.


By all appearances, Boehner and his aides will eventually think of some grounds for the lawsuit they’re so eager to file and the partisan plan will be set in motion: fundraising letters will be sent, Fox News segments will be produced, speeches will be delivered, and podiums will be pounded upon. The Republicans’ commitment to their silliest meme – Obama’s an out-of-control tyrant – will have the frivolous lawsuit the far-right demands.

But Boehner’s willingness to “wager” his and the institution’s “reputation” is barely an afterthought. If the Speaker was deeply concerned about such niceties, he wouldn’t have threatened to crash the economy on purpose in debt-ceiling hostage crises; he wouldn’t have shut down the government; he wouldn’t have held several dozen pointless votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act; and he might have tried working on governing at some point over the last three-and-a-half years.

If/when these lawsuits fail, what difference will it have made? Boehner will be right back where he is now: looking like a feckless Speaker with no accomplishments, no agenda, and a new addition to his list of embarrassments.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/boehner-prepared-wager-the-houses-reputation#break

Is Boehner prepared to ‘wager the House’s reputation’?

Can it get any worse than it already is?

This commentary, from the first sentence thru the last sentence, should be required reading ~ ~ Sooz

In Dramatic Pointless Gesture, Boehner to Sue Obama
Paul Waldman | June 25, 2014
Since Republicans know impeaching the president would be political disaster, this is the best alternative they can come up with.

Pretty much since the moment Barack Obama finished speaking the oath of office in January 2009, Republicans have been charging that he was abusing his power, exceeding his authority and acting like a tyrant. You might remember that for a time in those early days, conservatives (led by Glenn Beck) were obsessed with the idea that Obama had appointed a group of "czars" who were wielding unaccountable power to implement all sorts of nefarious schemes. They were unable to say how a "czar" differed from "a person who works in the White House," and that particular iteration of their outrage faded, but the underlying suspicion only grew. In the years since, the list of alleged usurpations of authority has grown daily, the charge that Obama is "lawless" becoming a constant.

At its root is the idea that Barack Obama's presidency is inherently illegitimate, and whatever he does in that office must be illegal, or nearly so. This often translates into complaints about process, so that even when they lose, Republicans charge that the game was rigged. For instance, conservatives have said thousands of times that the Affordable Care Act, despite being probably the most exhaustively debated piece of legislation in decades, was "rammed through" Congress before anybody realized what was happening. Actions that all presidents undertake, like making recess appointments, signing executive orders, or simply having agencies write regulations, become yet more evidence of Obama's horrific authoritarian rule.

It's safe to say that many if not most Republicans would be eager to impeach Obama were such a move not a guaranteed political disaster for them. So John Boehner has decided to pursue a kind of impeachment-lite, announcing that the House of Representatives will be suing the president for abusing his power. "The Constitution makes it clear that the president's job is to faithfully execute the law," he said. "In my view, the president has not faithfully executed the law." It's impossible to tell at this point whether the suit has any merit, because Boehner didn't actually cite any specific transgressions the suit will allege.

But my guess is that the suit will throw in every process complaint the Republicans have had over the last five years, because it's mostly about Boehner's right flank, both in Congress and in the Republican electorate. Even if the suit gets thrown out of court, Boehner will still be able to say to the eternally angry members to his right, "Hey, I'm the guy who sued Obama! I hate him as much as you do!"

It's irresistible to charge Republicans with hypocrisy, especially given the fact that they were unconcerned when the Bush administration pushed so vigorously at the limits of presidential power. Bush and his staff regularly ignored laws they preferred not to follow, often with the thinnest of justifications, whether it was claiming executive privilege to ignore congressional subpoenas or issuing 1,200 signing statements declaring the president's intention to disregard certain parts of duly passed laws. (They pushed the limits of vice presidential power, too—Dick Cheney famously argued that since the vice president is also president of the Senate, he was a member of both the executive and legislative branches, yet actually a member of neither and thus not subject to either's legal constraints. Seriously, he actually believed that.)

Needless to say, at the time Republicans were perfectly fine with these moves, because when the Bush administration was doing these things, it was in support of policies they favored. And that's how it goes: Process complaints are almost always a cover for substantive disagreement. A backroom deal made to pass a piece of legislation you agree with is just how the sausage gets made; a deal made for a piece of legislation you disagree with is evidence of deep corruption. A filibuster of a bill you oppose is a principled use of established procedures; a filibuster of a bill you favor is cynical obstructionism. And it's a little rich to hear congressional Republicans wail that Obama has subverted their will, when their will is that this president should be able to do absolutely nothing.

To be clear, I'm not saying that it's impossible that there could be any merit to whatever claims Boehner and his colleagues will make. There may have been situations in which Obama pushed presidential prerogatives beyond what the law and the Constitution allow, which the courts will decide. But this question comes up with every president, both because they all want to pursue their goals and try to find every means at their disposal to do so, and because the limits of that power are somewhat vague and complex. As it happens, in numeric terms, Obama has been far more restrained than his predecessor; he has issued fewer executive orders than other recent presidents, and has also used signing statements only occasionally (although recently he cited one of his signing statements as justification for failing to notify Congress 30 days before the release of Taliban prisoners in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl).

The numbers aren't really the point, though; the question is whether Obama actually ever exceeded his authority. This lawsuit may help us understand whether that occurred, and the result might set a useful precedent to guide future presidents. But I doubt it. More likely, it'll be an intensely partisan document whose purpose is to shake a fist at the president Republicans so despise, and it'll get tossed out of court and thrown in the dustbin where it belongs, one more futile, angry gesture from an opposition that has lost the ability to offer anything else.

http://prospect.org/article/dramatic-pointless-gesture-boehner-sue-obama

LOL! I'd forgotten about the "czar" scandal.

Reckon the dumb to dumber phase has ended and the dumber to dumbest phase is well underway.

I'm not too keen on Executive Orders, and would like to see Boehner win.

If it were a Republican President bypassing a Democratically-controlled Congress, would you still feel the same?

Things should go through Congress. (And the article above is wrong. Another example of where the President bypassed Congress and did push the legal envelope was in negotiating the recent POWs exchange without the consent of Congress.)

"Executive Order" is just a fancy way of saying "dictatorship".

How lucky we are just coming out of a dictatorship! Thank you, Obama! Thank you!

Great chart, Jab ~

Personally, I'm thinking Obama has shown enormous restraint in using executive orders, which are something ALL presidents use [as the above chart proves] ~ he has given the GOP/TPers chance after chance after chance to act like normal human beings ... but they have failed every time ~ Obama's use of EOs has ticked up recently, which I like since he has faced total obstruction on even the most mundane chores ~ the GOP/TPers even reject their own ideas once Obama agrees with them ~ instead of even minor compromise, the GOP/TPers have chosen to filibuster and put holds on virtually every candidate Obama has presented ... just to obstruct ~ but what is most galling to me is that most GOP/TPers vote "yes" once a vote is forced ~

Your "If it were a Republican President bypassing a Democratically-controlled Congress, would you still feel the same?" question, SciFi, is a fair one ~ my answer is yes, but only IF the Dems were being as obstructionist about everything as the GOP/TPers are being ~

Sooz

what if congress can't or won't act?

I'm thinking this is gonna be fun to watch unfold ~ ~ Sooz

Flipping the script on Boehner’s anti-Obama lawsuit
07/01/14 11:06 AM
By Steve Benen

Ever since House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced his intention to file a frivolous lawsuit against President Obama over his use of executive authority, there’s one person who seems especially excited about it: President Obama.

A few days ago in Minnesota, for example, Obama told voters, “I’m not sure which of the things I’ve done they find most offensive, but they’ve decided they’re going to sue me for doing my job. I mean, I might have said in the heat of the moment during one of these debates, ‘I want to raise the minimum wage, so sue me when I do,’ but I didn’t think they were going to take it literally.”

It’s unexpected, but the West Wing is arguably more enthusiastic about this lawsuit than Republicans are. NBC’s First Read crew added this morning:


Note that former White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler appeared on “Meet the Press” the other day and also seemed to enjoy chiding House Republicans for their pointless antics.

“To come out guns blazing and say, ‘I’m going to sue you,’ but then say, ‘Well, I haven’t really figured out why yet,’ is a little bit odd, to say the least,” Ruemmler said. “And I think it’s pretty suggestive that this is just for show. And it’s opportunistic in an election year.”

To my great relief, however, the National Republican Senatorial Committee yesterday published a piece claiming it has specific examples to bolster the party’s anti-Obama complaint.

The NRSC, whose website appears to be a sad Buzzfeed knockoff, complete with a few too many gifs, apparently has evidence of the president’s “out-of-control agenda” and Obama adopting “the governing philosophy of [an] Imperial President.” Here’s the whole list, exactly as it appeared on the NRSC site:

1) The time President Obama waived Obamacare for Unions, but not for you.

2) The time The Obama Administration spied on journalists and wouldn’t say why.

3) The time President Obama decided to attend the Senate Democrats retreat but not campaign with any of them.

4) The time President Obama restricted journalists from taking video and photos of him. Instead forcing them to use media provided by the White House.

5) The time President Obama delayed the KeystoneXL pipeline for more than 5 years, costing tens of thousands of jobs.

6) The time President Obama told you, you could keep your health plan even though he knew you couldn’t.

This is a terrific example of why the “Imperial President” talking point is simply impossible to take seriously. If Republicans were sincere about the belief that Obama had a genuinely “out-of-control agenda,” they’d be able to come up with actual lists. Hell, I don’t even believe the argument and even I could probably come up with bullet points that are better than these.

For example, the “Obamacare waiver for unions” line is silly, as is the accusation that the administration spied on journalists. But beyond that, if Obama attended a retreat with Senate Democrats, but didn’t campaign alongside some of them, that’s evidence of out-of-control president? For that matter, Obama delayed a decision on a controversial oil pipeline. This is the stuff of imperial tendencies?

Does the NRSC even understand its own talking points?

The reality isn’t especially complicated. As Jonathan Bernstein explained yesterday, “Rhetoric aside, no one thinks Obama is acting like a dictator…. [B]y every indicator we have for measuring unusual unilateral action – executive orders, signing statements, pardons and even recess appointments – Obama appears to be on the restrained side. That doesn’t mean the administration can’t be wrong on particular actions, but the larger case that Obama is particularly aggressive is a joke because it ignores 43 other presidencies.”

Love Obama or hate him, that’s just reality. No wonder the White House is more excited than Republicans to have this debate.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/flipping-the-script-boehners-anti-obama-lawsuit

Is there a court with so little to do that they'd have time for this nonsense?

the rich and powerful can always get someone to listen.

If Boehner and the GOP/TPers truly believe even a small percentage of the bile they spew, then they should be in a quiet, softly lit, padded room somewhere ~ ~ there are more "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Speaker still struggling to explain anti-Obama lawsuit
07/07/14 09:10 AM
By Steve Benen

No one seems quite as happy about House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) anti-Obama lawsuit as President Obama himself. For the West Wing, the Republican litigation helps prove to the public, in a rather definitive way, that Obama’s governing while GOP lawmakers in Congress sit around and complain. Indeed, the frivolous case is effectively a bold announcement that the Republican-led House wants the federal government to be paralyzed indefinitely – which is hardly a winning message in an election year.

And so the president has ended up talking more about Boehner’s prospective lawsuit than Boehner has. “I told [the House Speaker], ‘I’d rather do things with you, pass some laws, make sure the Highway Trust Fund is funded so we don’t lay off hundreds of thousands of workers.’ It’s not that hard,” Obama said last week. “Middle-class families can’t wait for Republicans in Congress to do stuff. So sue me. As long as they’re doing nothing, I’m not going to apologize for trying to do something.”

Yesterday, Boehner responded with a CNN op-ed, defending the litigation he has not yet filed. It’s worth scrutinizing in detail.


First, the Speaker needs to understand, in a “Schoolhouse Rock” sort of way, that the White House cannot create its own laws. That’s gibberish. Obama can create policies through executive orders and executive actions, but those aren’t literally new laws. Second, to help bolster his case about Obama abuses, Boehner referenced exactly zero specific examples.


No, holding the debt ceiling hostage, vowing to crash the global economy on purpose while ignoring the “Full Faith and Credit” of the United States is a “flippant dismissal of the Constitution.” Obama’s use of executive authority, on the other hand, is fairly routine.


Boehner may not remember this – 2008 seems like a long time ago – but Obama inherited the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. The president proceeded to turn the economy around, no thanks to Boehner, who demanded a five-year spending freeze at the height of the crisis, and has fought ever since for fewer investments, less capital, less demand, and higher unemployment through laid off public-sector workers.

As for where the jobs are, the United States is currently on track for the best year for job creation since the 1990s and June was the 52nd consecutive month in which we’ve seen private-sector job growth – the longest streak on record. Why didn’t Boehner read the jobs report?


No, not really.


First, if presidential whims periodically change American law outside the constitutional system, then Congress would have a responsibility to impeach the president. Since this allegation is imaginary, however, there’s no need. Second, if Boehner is concerned about employers’ confidence in economic stability, the Speaker can approve resources for the Highway Trust Fund and stop playing games with the economy (again).

If House Republicans have a legitimate complaint, shouldn’t it be easier for Boehner to make his case?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/speaker-still-struggling-explain-anti-obama-lawsuit

A very embarrassing beginning ~ ~ Sooz

House Republicans Replace Their Lawyer For Suit Against Obama
By Sahil Kapur Published September 19, 2014, 2:43 PM EDT

House Republicans have hired a new lead attorney to handle their lawsuit against President Barack Obama over his unilateral tweaks to Obamacare.

William A. Burck of the firm Quinn Emenual Urqhart & Sullivan has been retained, after David Rivkin backed out under pressure his firm faced from other clients, a House Republican aide with knowledge of the lawsuit said.

As Burck notes in his official biography, he was the defense counsel for Maureen McDonnell, wife of now-convicted Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), in his recent high-profile political corruption trial.

The news was first reported by David Drucker of the Washington Examiner.

House Republicans voted in July to sue Obama—the first time the House has endorsed a lawsuit against an incumbent president. The following month they hired Rivkin, a respected lawyer with the firm BakerHostetler, in August on a $500 per hour contract.

Rivkin, who has worked in previous Republican administrations, is no stranger to politically-charged cases: He was the lead attorney for the 26 states which sued to overturn Obamacare. A similar case made it to the Supreme Court in 2012.

Burck and Rivkin did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-republicans-hire-william-a-burck

Does Judge Judy already know when this case will be on her docket and be televised?

As Burck notes in his official biography, he was the defense counsel for Maureen McDonnell, wife of now-convicted Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), in his recent high-profile political corruption trial.

Has he won anything?

Elections, you mean? Hell no, but that's what it's all about in this suing exercise.

The GOP/TPers have 2 choices: [1] they can go ahead with this ridiculous lawsuit, spend hundreds of thousands or millions of our $$$, lose BIG, and look like complete fools; or [2] they can choose to not file the lawsuit, admit the lawsuit is virtually "unwinnable", and look like complete fools ~ either/or ~ ~ there are some "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

House GOP’s anti-Obama lawsuit already in deep trouble
09/23/14 09:59 AM—Updated 09/23/14 10:21 AM
By Steve Benen

After months of congressional Republicans condemning the tyranny of a lawless, out-of-control White House, GOP leaders announced they would file a historic lawsuit, taking President Obama’s outrageous abuses to the courts. The transgression at the top of the Republicans list? A delayed deadline for an obscure Affordable Care Act provision.

Two months later, the litigation is already in bad shape. For one thing, it still hasn’t been filed. For another, Republicans recently had to replace their legal team after the original firm that took the case walked away. (The GOP hired, of all people, Maureen McDonnell’s lead defense attorney.)

Yesterday, as Jennifer Haberkorn reported, a similar case to the one Republicans are pushing was thrown out of court.


That’s not a good sign.

Indeed, given that the House GOP’s case hasn’t actually been filed, it’s not too late for lawmakers to save taxpayers a few bucks and put an end to the p.r. stunt while the process is still in its infancy.

There are competing opinions about the merits of the case, but I continue to believe there’s just not much of a point to this. When the Bush/Cheney administration delayed comparable deadlines while implementing Medicare Part D, no one cared, and certainly no one thought to literally make a federal case out of it.

What’s more, let’s not forget that the Republicans are suing to require the Obama administration to immediately implement a policy the GOP lawmakers themselves do not actually want to see implemented.

In light of the 7th Circuit’s decision, GOP leaders could announce today that they’ve decided to save $350,000 and call this whole thing off. Six weeks before Election Day, voters might even be impressed.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/house-gops-anti-obama-lawsuit-already-deep-trouble#break

HA! ~ there was never any "case" to be made ~ all Boehner did was grab a few news cycles ~ maybe the GOP "decided" that it would be even more embarrassing to lose a highly-publicized [tho bogus] case than to just back off and hope no one notices ~ ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine, and there are "live links" to more/corroborating info in the original ~ Sooz

The House GOP’s crumbling anti-Obama lawsuit
10/27/14 08:46 AM
By Steve Benen

Americans first learned back on June 24, more than four months ago, about the House Republican plan to file a lawsuit against President Obama. Two weeks later, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced the basis for the case: the GOP would sue to implement an obscure provision of the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans don’t actually want to see implemented.

When the case was announced, congressional Republicans made it seem as if they were headed to court as part of a bold move to preserve our constitutional system of government against the tyrannical moves of a lawless presidency. But four months later, it looks as if Boehner & Co. got lost on the way to the courthouse.

Josh Gerstein reports that the case hasn’t even been filed yet.


Republicans not only won’t file the case, they also refuse to say why they won’t file the case – party officials refused to explain the delay when asked by Politico for comment.

“I thought this was a constitutional crisis and the republic was in jeopardy because Obama overstepped his bounds. Now, they can’t even get around to filing it?” former Democratic House Counsel Stan Brand told Gerstein. “It, to me, emphasizes the not-serious nature of it.”

This arguably understates matters.

Simon Lazarus and Elisabeth Stein had this striking report over the weekend:


The non-partisan CRS, which effectively serves as Congress’ in-house think tank, found that the case is built on a faulty premise and would not succeed. Lazarus and Stein added that the CRS was apparently requested by Republicans “to give some color of legitimacy to their charges of rampant presidential illegality.” When the findings offered proof of the opposite, Republicans buried it. “[T]he result validates the lawyers’ maxim not to ask a question when unsure of the likely answer,” Lazarus and Stein noted.

This GOP stunt was always rather pathetic. Now, however, the charade appears to be over.

As should have been obvious all along, Republicans were never serious about this litigation. GOP officials were so wholly invested in a ridiculous talking point – our rascally president has transformed into a dictator – they saw a lawsuit as a way to bolster a misguided public-relations campaign.

But it quickly backfired. The basis for the lawsuit was hard to take seriously; the case was going to cost American taxpayers money Republicans claim we don’t have; it actually motivated the Democratic base in an election year; the narrow focus of the suit only helped reinforce the belief that the entire p.r. push was a baseless sham; and even the Congressional Research Service told GOP lawmakers not to bother.

The “constitutional crisis” was an election-year mirage, touted by con artists. Republicans may go through with the litigation anyway – after the election, that is, once they’re no longer worried about a political backlash for their partisan antics – but as we were reminded a month ago, the case isn’t likely to go well.

It’s not too late for Boehner to concede this was a bad idea from the start. Republicans can save us some time and aggravation, give up on the case, and play some other silly game.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-house-gops-crumbling-anti-obama-lawsuit

Not always.

Seems the GOP/TPers are having a tough time keeping a law firm interested ~ tooooo bad/sooooo sad ~ ~ Sooz

House GOP’s lawyers give up on anti-Obama lawsuit
10/30/14 08:00 AM—Updated 10/30/14 09:10 AM
By Steve Benen

More than four months after House Republicans announced their historic plan to sue President Obama, the litigation, like so many initiatives from GOP lawmakers, has become a fiasco. Josh Gerstein and Maggie Haberman reported overnight that the Republicans’ lawyers have given up on the case – again.


Apparently, the attorneys responsible for the case decided to give up “in recent weeks,” but we’re just learning about their decision now. Boehner’s office wouldn’t comment on why they quit the case, though a spokesperson for the Speaker told Politico, “The litigation remains on track, but we are examining the possibility of forgoing outside counsel and handling the litigation directly through the House.”

The piece added that some in the D.C. legal community “believe it’s possible no suit will ever be filed.”

To appreciate the severity of the fiasco, consider this timeline of events:

* June 24: House Republican leaders acknowledge their plan to sue President Obama. They weren’t sure why they wanted to file the case, but GOP officials intended to think of something.

* July 10: Speaker Boehner formally releases a bill authorizing his anti-Obama litigation. The Republicans’ case intended to force the implementation of an obscure provision of the Affordable Care Act which Republicans don’t actually want to see implemented.

* August 25: House Republicans agree to pay a D.C. law firm $500 an hour, in taxpayer money, to handle the case.

* September 18: The Republicans are forced to pick a different D.C. law firm after their first lawyers gave up on the case, who hadn’t even filed the lawsuit.

* September 19: A federal appeals court throws out a lawsuit extremely similar to the one GOP leaders intend to file.

* October 29: The public learns that the Republicans’ second set of lawyers have also given up on the case, which still hasn’t been filed.

Over the summer, Boehner and other GOP officials said this was an incredibly important case, which was absolutely necessary to address a “constitutional crisis.” Four months later, it seems pretty obvious there is no crisis, the lawsuit was a fairly pathetic election-year stunt, and there’s just no reason to keep this rolling fiasco alive.

As we talked about the other day, it’s not too late for Boehner to concede this was a bad idea from the start. Republicans can save us some time, aggravation, and money by just giving up on this nonsense.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/house-gops-lawyers-give-anti-obama-lawsuit

Reckon these lawyers don't like to be on the losing side.

Gotta keep the base fired up ~ ~ Sooz

Boehner may expand anti-Obama lawsuit that doesn’t exist
11/14/14 09:48 AM
By Steve Benen

In all likelihood, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) does not want to shut down the government. He’d probably also prefer to avoid a pointless presidential impeachment crusade.

But the Republican leader also realizes many in his party want both a shutdown and impeachment, putting the Speaker in a position where he’ll need to find some alternative approach that rebukes the White House, satiates his rabid allies, but doesn’t actually do anything meaningful or potentially scandalous.

Robert Costa and Ed O’Keefe report that Boehner has just such a solution in mind.


And if the goal is to give the appearance of action without doing anything too meaningful, this might do the trick. Republicans are convinced executive actions on immigration policy are a flagrant violation of the Constitution – but only when Obama does it? Fine, go to the courts.

The lawsuit would almost certainly fail, but that’s not really the point. By pursuing a legal recourse, Boehner gets to “stand up” to President Obama, he gives Republicans something specific to rally behind, and he throws cold water on the more ridiculous alternative tactics. All he has to do is add some complaints to his current anti-Obama lawsuit.

Of course, that’d be easier if the anti-Obama lawsuit actually existed.

Boehner first announced his plan to sue the president back in June. A month later, the Speaker’s office formally unveiled the legislation to authorize the litigation, a case intended to force the implementation of an obscure provision of the Affordable Care Act which Republicans don’t actually want to see implemented.

A month after that, House Republicans agree to pay a D.C. law firm $500 an hour, in taxpayer money, to handle the case.

And since then, bupkis. Republicans hired a law firm to oversee the litigation, but the firm changed its mind in September and dropped the case. GOP leaders then hired a second firm, only to learn a month later that it dropped the case, too.

Now Boehner wants to add complaints to lawsuit, though at present, there is no lawsuit.

At this rate, Republicans might get around to filing the case, making their arguments, and receiving a verdict around the time Obama has left the White House.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/boehner-may-expand-anti-obama-lawsuit-doesnt-exist