I’m sure by now you’ve heard that John Boehner plans to sue Presidente Obama for issuing executive orders to get around the fact that Congress (by which I mean the House) would rather do nothing than do anything Obama wants to do.
Or something.
It’s hard to critique Boehner’s actual plan when he hasn’t given any specifics over which executive orders he’s going to sue over, or what reparations he plans to ask for, or really what he hopes to accomplish besides annoying the President and (maybe kinda probably not but shit no harm in trying weirder things have happened) finding something impeachable. (Which Boehner says he is probably not doing. So okay.)
I’m not even sure what legal grounds he has for a lawsuit in the first place, since there’s no law against issuing executive orders. According to George Will (of all people, who supports the idea of a lawsuit), the legal strategy should work as long as it satisfies four requirements:
1.) One branch of Congress to authorize the suit
2.) Proof that Congress has been injured by Obama’s executive actions
3.) No private entity has standing to bring suit
4.) Congress has no chance of reversing the president’s action by repealing the law.
As I understand it, that’s just so Boehner can get his foot in the courtroom door and get a judge to actually hear the case. What happens after that is anyone’s guess – again, it depends on what Boehner hopes to accomplish. Executive orders aren’t sacrosanct – they can be overturned by a court (although it’s happened only twice in US history), but the grounds for doing so has usually been rooted in the fact that the EOs created a law that didn’t exist before. I have no idea if that’s the case with the EOs Boehner is targeting, since he hasn’t said which ones he has a beef with (and I’m pretty sure “all of them” isn’t going to cut it unless the judge is Antonin Scalia).
On the other hand, Boehner’s objective could be more along the lines of a publicity stunt for the mid-term elections, if only because it seems designed mostly to impress the conservative base.
For Democrats and anyone with a modicum of common sense, it’s fairly obvious that the only problem Republicans have with Obama’s executive orders is that Obama is the one writing them.
Here’s a chart showing the history of executive orders.

Notice how you’d have to go back to Grover Cleveland’s second term to find a POTUS who issued less of them than Obama (though admittedly he hasn’t finished his second term yet).
And surely I’m not the only one who’s noticed that no one in the GOP was complaining about presidential abuse of authority back when George W Bush was dishing out all 291 of his EOs. Hell, even Neil Cavuto has figured that one out.
So, yeah, I’m going to go with “hypocritical publicity stunt with added mid-term impeachment fodder”.
To be fair, it’s always possible that some of Obama’s orders are legally problematic. But given the GOP’s track record on accusing Obama of this or that malfeasance or evil plan or whatever, I’d be surprised if any of them are. I’ll be even more surprised if the lawsuit gets that far.
Anyway, the backfire and subsequent meltdown should be entertaining.
See you in court,
This is dF
Or something.
It’s hard to critique Boehner’s actual plan when he hasn’t given any specifics over which executive orders he’s going to sue over, or what reparations he plans to ask for, or really what he hopes to accomplish besides annoying the President and (maybe kinda probably not but shit no harm in trying weirder things have happened) finding something impeachable. (Which Boehner says he is probably not doing. So okay.)
I’m not even sure what legal grounds he has for a lawsuit in the first place, since there’s no law against issuing executive orders. According to George Will (of all people, who supports the idea of a lawsuit), the legal strategy should work as long as it satisfies four requirements:
1.) One branch of Congress to authorize the suit
2.) Proof that Congress has been injured by Obama’s executive actions
3.) No private entity has standing to bring suit
4.) Congress has no chance of reversing the president’s action by repealing the law.
As I understand it, that’s just so Boehner can get his foot in the courtroom door and get a judge to actually hear the case. What happens after that is anyone’s guess – again, it depends on what Boehner hopes to accomplish. Executive orders aren’t sacrosanct – they can be overturned by a court (although it’s happened only twice in US history), but the grounds for doing so has usually been rooted in the fact that the EOs created a law that didn’t exist before. I have no idea if that’s the case with the EOs Boehner is targeting, since he hasn’t said which ones he has a beef with (and I’m pretty sure “all of them” isn’t going to cut it unless the judge is Antonin Scalia).
On the other hand, Boehner’s objective could be more along the lines of a publicity stunt for the mid-term elections, if only because it seems designed mostly to impress the conservative base.
For Democrats and anyone with a modicum of common sense, it’s fairly obvious that the only problem Republicans have with Obama’s executive orders is that Obama is the one writing them.
Here’s a chart showing the history of executive orders.

Notice how you’d have to go back to Grover Cleveland’s second term to find a POTUS who issued less of them than Obama (though admittedly he hasn’t finished his second term yet).
And surely I’m not the only one who’s noticed that no one in the GOP was complaining about presidential abuse of authority back when George W Bush was dishing out all 291 of his EOs. Hell, even Neil Cavuto has figured that one out.
So, yeah, I’m going to go with “hypocritical publicity stunt with added mid-term impeachment fodder”.
To be fair, it’s always possible that some of Obama’s orders are legally problematic. But given the GOP’s track record on accusing Obama of this or that malfeasance or evil plan or whatever, I’d be surprised if any of them are. I’ll be even more surprised if the lawsuit gets that far.
Anyway, the backfire and subsequent meltdown should be entertaining.
See you in court,
This is dF