Agree. I think Turley was chosen partly because he has access to the media, and that Turley agreed to take on the case for further media exposure.
4 Likes
To my untrained mind, since only a few percent of those here illegally can be deported in a given year prioritizing deportations such that non-criminals run effectively a 0% chance of being deported is completely within the Presidentâs prerogative. Where he potentially faces issues is if he were to actually issue work permits. I understand the Presidentâs desire to do so, but maybe doing it with a wink and a nod would be wiser. That would still help the undocumented because they could file labor complaints free of threats from their employer.
4 Likes
Honestly, I have serious doubts about that, though I agree with you that is the reason he is being hired.
The reason for my doubts have more to do with the client. Boehner already wants to drop the first reason for the case (the delay on the employer mandate) and is now trying to change into something a bit more time sensitiveâŚnamely about an EO that hasnât even been done.
The legal system works much slower than the news cycle. There is no way that any law firm, let alone a law professor, can constantly change the entire grounds of the suit as Boehner shifts his interest with the current hot item of the day.
And yes, even if he did get something to the court house, its going to be laughed right off the docket.
3 Likes
Iâm not really sure, to be honest. I do a lot of administrative law (regulations and agency actions), but Iâm not as familiar with immigration. I expect you are probably right. What I do know for sure, however, is that the original basis for the lawsuit, the employer mandate delay, will go nowhere. Not only does Boehner have to have standing (injury), but it has to be fixable in some way. The delay has already been done and by the time the lawsuit makes it way up, the delay will be over. Boehner will likely have to add something else to the lawsuit to try and make it fly.
3 Likes
I agree about the laughing, but I really think heâll file it. Itâll get tossed for standing (depending on the immigration order and what it contains), but heâll file it. The problem with professors is they are fabulous in legal theory, but have real problems with how courts actually work and the requirements for engaging the system.
3 Likes
Indeed. He has neither standing nor an injury of any kind, let alone one the courts could remedy. Not to mention that as the Speaker of the House he is one of the few people who, if he disagrees with a Presidential EO, he can actually do something about itâŚsubmit a bill overriding the EO.
Additionally, the courts historically take a very dim view of the other two branches trying to wrangle them into what is essentially a political spat.
4 Likes
Donât they all. I am really disappointed in Turley,
1 Like
Well, the motivations are definitely in place for him to try and file a case, I agree. But which case? The one about delaying the mandate or the one about a potential EO that doesnât even exist yet?
Boehner has already lost interest in the mandate lawsuitâŚafter all, it was merely a political exercise in trying to fire up the base, and the election is over. His only interest now, which I believe is also waning, is to keep up appearances for the TPers in his caucus. By January, assuming he wins re election to Speaker, he will have lost all interest in going forward.Unless there is a new shiney on the horizon that he wants to dance with reporters about. And on. And on. And on.
I think the never ending possibilities involved with this nonsense is probably a big part of why everyone else is turning him down.File ONE crazy lawsuit for the GOP House? Sure thing, thats great publicity. Dedicate yourself to filing, or bluffing to file, endless lawsuits for the next two years? All of which will be farcical in the eyes of the legal community? No thanks.
3 Likes
Those who can doâŚthose who canât flap their gumsâŚturly the tea gop flapper de jour! They have had two second teir firms drop themâŚthere is a reasonâŚStupidity!
And will any reporter ask him about those actions by Reagan and Bush?
(crickets chirping)
2 Likes
The case isnât about immigration, itâs about the small business mandate in the ACA. Obama delayed it taking effect by executive order from last January to January 2015. Which means that it goes into effect in a month and a half, likely before this lawsuit finally gets filed. So it really does make you wonder what remedy they are proposing. Reimburse employees for medical care they had to pay for themselves while they werenât covered by an employer-provided plan? Thatâs the only thing I can think of, but it would be hilariously hypocritical in light of Republicansâ opposition to the mandate in the first place.
1 Like
If you donât have actual standing to get before the courtsâŚyou not only donât have a decent case, you donât have any case. And Boehner doesnât have standing for either scenario. The employer mandate delay will be lifted in two months, far sooner than any court would hear such a case which makes it moot, and he can show no harm (kinda hard to show that delaying something you have tried to repeal 50+ times is causing you harm).
The EO case is even more ridiculous. How can you file a suit against an EO that hasnât even be released? I mean, shall we file lawsuits today against Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, etc. because they MIGHT do something unconstitutional if they MIGHT get elected President? Its the same sort of âlogicâ.
3 Likes
No, he doesnât have a decent case. The question, like in the other Obamacare suit SCOTUS just granted cert on, is whether the rule of Chevron USA v. NRDC, which requires courts to defer to agency interpretations of statutes unless they are facially crazy, applies even when the president is a black radical America hating blackity black black radical Kenyan usurper Democrat Alinslyite.
5 Likes
Translation: âTheyâre going to pay me a lot of money, and Iâm very excited about that.â
Fucking idiot knows very well that heâs got a massive uphill climb to make these arguments in light of cases like Chaney v. Heckler. I guess GW pays their professors pretty shitty.
4 Likes
Actually, with Boehner filing the case, the ruling couldnât even cover that, as he is not under any ACA employer provided plan. His âinjuryâ is merely that the House of Representatives has been institutionally harmed by the President delaying a piece of something they want to repeal entirely.
So he is way out on a limb there. Add to that the Boehner has submitted not a single bill to overturn the delay and enforce the mandate immediately, something that is entirely within his power to do, and it again just collapses upon itself.
2 Likes
Not as good as Thomasâ favorite video-Long Dong Silver
But that isnât the question. The statute (the ACA) set an explicit date for the provision to take effect, and the Administration defied it. So far as I know, the statute didnât provide waiver authority for that date. On the other hand, prior Presidents have also ignored similar dates, which raises a not insignificant question of whether the President has implicit waiver authority. I donât think any president has that authority, but the courts are not suppose to be just debating societies. They are limited to actual controversies brought by someone who was actually injured. They are not (supposedly) for settling political scores-- especially between different branches of government. So, we shall see.
This is a very weak Chevron case, because the law had an explicit date that the Administration defied. Chevron is for cases where the statutory language is ambiguous, which it wasnât here.
This reminds me of the whole Ken Starr fiasco. Hire a lawyer to pursue one convoluted, weak case (Whitewater), then just keep changing his focus as dictated by events (Monica Lewinsky).
3 Likes
Indeed. Not to mention the deference afforded the Chief Executive in terms of things like issuing waivers or implementing deadline extensions where it is necessary in order to see that the purpose and intent of the legislation and whatever program it creates is carried out effectively. Thatâs Chaney v. Heckler I think (if I remember correctly), which interpreted the deference due to POTUS in terms of him faithfully carrying out the laws. I tend to think thatâs a little closer to the central issue in terms of the ACA delays issue and immigration, but maybe Iâm mis-remembering my con-lawâŚbeen a while hehe. With immigration, thereâs also an element of prosecutorial discretion involved too. With the King and Halbig cases about ACA subsidies on state exchanges, I think youâre right about ChevronâŚit definitely comes down to the agency interpretations issue. In all of them though, it seems to me that the SCOTUS is going to basically have to ignore or change precedent to get to the decision the conservatives want, which of course is their M.O. lately because, like you said, the President be blackin.
Make of it what you will I suppose. My memory of it was a little foggier than I thought, but whatever.
1 Like