Connect with us

In Op-Ed, John Boehner Reveals He Has No Actual Legal Justification For Suing President Obama

Published

on

Speaker of the House John Boehner announced over the weekend — in a ghostwritten CNN op-ed — that he has pretty much zero legal or logical justification for suing Barack Obama, but he’s going to try to do it anyway.

Last month Fox News pundit George Will, in his Washington Post column, outlined a hair-brained and likely legally faulty scheme designed to give the Republican-led House a path to sue President Barack Obama. Why? What George Will called the President’s so-called “lawlessness” — aka, doing his job by issuing executive orders, which every president for decades has done. Will presented an idea formed by occasional Fox News guests, attorneys David B. Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley.

President Barack Obama’s “offenses against the separation of powers have been egregious in quantity,” Will wrongly claimed, offering his “reason” to sue the President.

Last week and then, in a CNN op-ed this weekend, Speaker John Boehner took the GOP base bait, “borrowing” Will’s suggestion — and the Rivkin-Price Foley tactics — and announced he indeed will sue President Obama.

Clearly, though, he has no idea why — and nor did his CNN ghostwriter.

Boehner (or his ghostwriter,) claims that “too often over the past five years, the President has circumvented the American people and their elected representatives through executive action, changing and creating his own laws, and excusing himself from enforcing statutes he is sworn to uphold — at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the American people to stop him.”

If he has been daring the American people to stop him, it certainly wasn’t when he passed Obamacare, ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” or moved the country forward more than 570 times. 571 if you count getting re-elected.

CNN’s Sally Kohn writes that the idea of suing Obama is “frivolous” and “nothing more than a flagrant partisan stunt.”

House Republicans are using taxpayer dollars to fund a lawsuit against a President who has literally done not only what every president before him has done but has done it less often and is doing so now only because House Republicans repeatedly refuse to even vote on legislation, let alone pass anything.

Will claims Obama’s “offenses against the separation of powers have been egregious in quantity.” Kohn proves that’s false.

President Theodore Roosevelt enacted 1,081 executive orders during his presidency. President Dwight Eisenhower had 484. President Ronald Reagan had 381. And President George W. Bush had 291.

President Barack Obama has enacted 182 executive orders — yet the GOP accuses him of being an “imperial president,” and Republican members of the House of Representatives are preparing to sue him for violating the Constitution.

If House Republicans don’t like these executive orders, then pass immigration reform and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Don’t sue the President. Passing laws that our nation wants and needs is doing your job. Suing the President just because you don’t like him is irresponsible partisan petulance.

And indeed, Boehner’s op-ed offers no legal explanation, no actual justification, no respectable argument for suing President Obama.

Instead, he offers this:

After years of slow economic growth and high unemployment under President Obama, they are still asking, ‘where are the jobs?’ The House has passed more than 40 jobs bills that would help. But Washington Democrats, led by the President, just ignore them.

Even worse, the President’s habit of ignoring the law as written hurts our economy and jobs even more. Washington taxes and regulations always make it harder for private sector employers to meet payrolls, invest in new initiatives and create jobs — but how can those employers plan, invest and grow when the laws are changing on the President’s whim at any moment?

“Where are the jobs?” That’s laughable, considering 48 hours earlier, Bloomberg News reported a “plunge in U.S. unemployment to the lowest level in more than five years,” and noted that payrolls “surged in June by 288,000 workers and unemployment fell to 6.1 percent, a level that Fed officials didn’t expect to see before the end of the year.”

Seriously, that’s Boehner’s entire argument — eviscerated by “plunging unemployment” and “surging payrolls.”

To quote Rick Perry, “oops.”

Attorney Jonathan Turley has spoken out in opposition to Obama’s use of executive orders. But on his blog this weekend, contributor Mark Esposito wrote a scathing analysis of Boehner’s impending lawsuit and his CNN op-ed: “The Boehner Manifesto: How To Do Nothing And Look Constitutional?“

It’s a time-tested feature of the American Presidency that holders of the office are judged by what they do for people and not how they do it. Lincoln is remembered in the consciousness of the public  for ending the Civil War not suspending habeas corpus. FDR is lionized for the New Deal and his leadership against fascism not the court-packing plan. And even ol’ unpopular ‘W” himself has received a popularity renaissance of sorts for his efforts to combat terrorism with hardly a mention of the dubious methods he employed. Why would the public in the last two elections be looking for anything different?  Give us someone who can bring about positive change in Washington and the society it oversees was the order from the populace.

And at the ever-insightful and ever-irreverent Balloon Juice:

The reasons stated to justify Boehner’s lawsuit are fuzzy, unconnected to the law, the Constitution, logic or even reality. That will no doubt make it a winning stunt and distraction for the White Walkers animating the corpse of the GOP.

…

The base is outraged that a black man is President. They are outraged that he dares to exercise the exact same type of Presidential powers that white Presidents have used in the past. They are outrage that he does not seek permission of the white GOP minority before he acts.

John Boehner gets the outrage of his base. He fears his base and needs them at the same time. To fluff them he will do anything. And so he is preparing to sue the President of the United States for the “crime” of being an uppity negro.

Take the racial code-talking away and there is nothing to support or justify his lawsuit at all.

As silly as this lawsuit will be, sillier still will be the way that the very serious people inside the beltway will pretend that race has nothing to do with it.

Yes, John Boehner, the man who allowed the Tea Party to shut down the government last year, costing American taxpayers $24 billion, the man who spent $3 million to defend DOMA in federal court (you’ll remember, he lost each time,) is now going to take your hard earned money and use it to sue the President, offering another stunt to take the public’s eye off immigration reform, minimum wage reform, and, well, passing laws of any kind.

UPDATE: The White House Deputy Press Secretary just tweeted this:

 

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Dominion Wins ‘Blockbuster Victories’ Against Fox News – Last Legal Issue Will Be Decided by a Jury: Report

Published

16 hours ago

on

March 31, 2023

By

Dominion Voting Systems won what are being called “blockbuster victories” Friday afternoon when a judge ruled the company suing Fox News for $1.6 billion in a major defamation lawsuit had met its burden of proof that Rupert Murdoch‘s far-right wing cable channel had repeatedly made false statements.

The final, and likely greatest legal issue Dominion will have to prove will be actual malice. That issue will be decided in a jury trial, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis ruled Friday, according to Law & Crime.

Unlike previous cases, Fox News will reportedly not be able to argue the on-air statements its personalities made were opinion.

CNN legal analyst and Brookings senior fellow Norm Eisen calls Friday’s decision a “huge win for Dominion on their summary judgment motion against Fox News.”

READ MORE: Capitol Police Issue Warning Over Possible Trump Protests ‘Across the Country’

“Dominion won partial summary judgement that what Fox said about them was false! Now they just have to prove actual malice and damages,” Eisen says. “Meanwhile Fox’s motion was totally denied.”

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, an MSNBC contributor adds: “Dominion’s evidence Fox made false statements with reckless disregard  is as strong as any I’ve seen.”

The judge was very clear in his ruling.

“While the Court must view the record in the light most favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material fact as to falsity,” Judge Davis wrote. “Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden.”

READ MORE: ‘Propaganda Network’: Media Reporter Says Dominion Filing Exposes Fox News as ‘Void of the Most Basic Journalistic Ethics’

Attorney and MSNBC host and legal analyst Katie Phang points to this key passage in Judge Davis’ ruling.

Court watchers and news junkies are familiar at this point with the massive legal filings Dominion has made in which it exposed how Fox News knowingly made false statements regarding the 2020 presidential election. Those filings, each hundreds of pages, also detail internal Fox News communications and bombshell conversations between the company’s top personalities, executives, and even Chairman Rupert Murdoch.

 

Image of Rupert Murdoch via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

Capitol Police Issue Warning Over Possible Trump Protests ‘Across the Country’

Published

18 hours ago

on

March 31, 2023

By

The U.S. Capitol Police and the Senate Sergeant at Arms on Friday jointly issued a statement warning they “anticipate” Trump protests across the country. The statement is not time-specific, and it states it has no information on “credible threats,” but some Democratic offices are allowing staffers to work from home Friday and Tuesday.

“The Sergeant at Arms and United States Capitol Police (USCP) anticipate demonstration activity across the country related to the indictment of former President Trump. While law enforcement is not tracking any specific, credible threats against the Capitol or state offices, there is potential for demonstration activity. USCP is working with law enforcement partners, so you may observe a greater law enforcement presence on Capitol Hill,” the statement reads.

“The SAA and USCP are monitoring the potential nationwide impacts to Senate state offices,” it adds.

The House Sergeant at Arms was conspicuously absent from the statement. Speaker Kevin McCarthy has control over that office.

READ MORE: Trump Trial Could Go Well Into the 2024 Election – Or Possibly Even Past It: Former Prosecutor

Additionally, Axios is reporting, “several House Democrats are allowing staffers to work from home as a safety precaution,” noting that “the memory of Trump supporters ransacking the Capitol on Jan. 6 is still fresh on the mind.”

U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) is allowing staff to work from home for safety reasons. She told Axios, “I don’t ever want to see a Jan. 6 again.”

“I’ve been in the Trump hate tunnel, Donald Trump has gone after me, and quite frankly I don’t have security. I don’t have entourages.”

She’s not the only Democrat to raise concerns.

“Much of the language from the former President and his devotees is similar to what inspired Jan. 6th,” U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips said. “I’m concerned about safety for my colleagues and my staff.”

READ MORE: ‘Lighting the Match’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasted for Off the Rails Rant Defending Trump

Meanwhile, House Republicans are issuing full-throated support for Trump and calling for protests.

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who was called out by name in a six-page letter Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sent to Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan Friday morning, announced she will be in New York on Tuesday to support Trump when he is arraigned. She has posted several tweets since Trump was indicted.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy issued a statement Thursday seemingly designed to gin up rage and action in the MAGA base.

“Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election. As he routinely frees violent criminals to terrorize the public, he weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump. The American people will not tolerate this injustice, and the House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account.”

 

Image by Elvert Barnes via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

News

Trump Trial Could Go Well Into the 2024 Election – Or Possibly Even Past It: Former Prosecutor

Published

20 hours ago

on

March 31, 2023

By

Donald Trump, and all of America, could spend the next 18 months – or longer – engrossed in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s trial of the ex-president, and that could bring the trial close to Election Day.

That’s according to a former prosecutor in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office, Charles Coleman, who is now a civil rights attorney and MSNBC legal analyst.

Asked by MSNBC’s Chris Jansing, “How long typically might a case like this take?” Coleman offered a two-tiered answer.

“A case like this is usually going to take a year or a year and a half,” Coleman said.

That could be through September of 2024.

READ MORE: ‘Lighting the Match’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasted for Off the Rails Rant Defending Trump

“Wow,” a surprised Jansing replied. “So it’s going right up into the campaign.”

“Absolutely,” agreed Coleman. “But it’s important to understand I said a case ‘like this.’ This particular case, I expect may take longer because I am anticipating a number of different legal maneuvers by Donald Trump’s defense team.”

That theoretically means into October of 2024, or longer.

“I do see motions to dismiss at a number of different terms, more likely than not to the point that the judge probably will ultimately end up admonishing them and telling them stop filing motions to dismiss. I think that that’s going to happen,” Coleman explained.

“I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, I do believe that we are going to see an attempt to try to change the venue, in this case outside of somewhere in the five boroughs. All of that is going to extend the time deeper and deeper into election season.”

READ MORE: Manhattan DA Unleashes on Jim Jordan With Stern Warning: You May Not ‘Interfere’ With Trump Prosecution

Reuters agrees, reporting Friday morning, “any potential trial is still at minimum more than a year away, legal experts said, raising the possibility that the former U.S. president could face a jury in a Manhattan courtroom during or even after the 2024 presidential campaign, as he seeks a return to the White House.”

And because “Trump’s case is far from typical,” Reuters notes, his trial could extend “past Election Day in November 2024.”

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.