Epic Fail

Boehner: We’re Suing the Welfare President Because We Agree With Him


Speaker of the House John Boehner laid out the case for suing the president today in an op-ed column for USA Today, and if you can make past the egregious lies contained in the opening paragraphs, you’ll find that Boehner openly admits that he and his colleagues agree with the president’s actions.

Given the groundbreaking nature of this legal action, we want to assert our clearest constitutional position. The fact we agree with a change that should have been made in law makes this case clearer to the court.

I oppose the employer mandate in the president’s health care law. The House of Representatives has voted to delay or eliminate it (and we will do so again if we prevail in court). But it is the letter of the law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. He simply cannot unilaterally rewrite it.

This couldn’t possibly be any more surreal or preposterous.

I’m not a constitutional lawyer so perhaps someone who is more versed in these matters can tell me if Boehner’s lawsuit can be thrown out of court based on a lack of injury.

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson’s (R) lawsuit aimed at preventing congressional staffers from receiving Obamacare subsidies was recently thrown out of court because neither he or his staff were “injured” by the law.

In this case, John Boehner is openly admitting that he and his colleagues agree with the president’s actions.

Where’s the injury?

Not to let it go unmentioned — Boehner pulled a dog-whistle out of right field in the opening paragraphs of his op-ep and implied that President Obama is a welfare president.

I believe the president’s actions in a number of areas — including job-destroying energy regulations, releasing the “Taliban 5″ from Guantanamo without notice and waiving the work requirements in welfare — exceed his constitutional authority.

In addition to being a dog-whistle, this is misleading at best and a lie at worst.

The president did not waive work requirements. States can waive requirements as they see fit based on their own experiences and observations.

You know, states’ right. Remember states’ rights?

It has been at least a year (if not two) since the last time congressional Republicans crowed about work requirements so I see this as an intentional dog-whistle dredged up just to attack the president’s character and motivations.