House Republicans vote to sue Obama over hated healthcare law not implemented fast enough

[babylonsister]

Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 04:45 PM PDT
House Republicans vote to sue Obama over hated healthcare law not implemented fast enough

by Susan Gardner
Via Think Progress:

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 225 to 201 on Wednesday to authorize Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) to sue President Barack Obama and others in his administration for failure to fully implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. Ironically, all of those Republicans voting for a lawsuit to force faster implementation of the healthcare reform law have repeatedly backed its full repeal.

You can't make this up. The same people who hate this law are suing because the president slowed down its implementation:

The resolution gives Boehner the authority to file or intervene federal court cases “to seek any appropriate relief regarding the failure of the President, the head of any department or agency, or any other officer or employee of the executive branch, to act in a manner consistent with that official’s duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States” relating to failure to implement provisions of Obamacare. ” The aim of this, Boehner has stated, is to sue the Obama for “his decision to extend — twice — the deadline to institute the employer mandate in his health care law.”

And you know they'd have sued if Obama had tried to implement the law faster, too. Ridiculous.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. and still too stupid to realize that they just handed the Democrats a soundbyte goldmine!

[xfundy]

2. Comedy gold.

[FredSlice]

3. a suit against the President for something he didn't do is really dumb.

Since it was the Treasury Department and the IRS that actually issued the final rule(s) that extended the deadline to implement the employer mandate, a suit against the President for something he didn't do is really dumb.

Obama has only issued one Presidential Executive Order pertaining to the Affordable Care Act and it was ensure compliance with the provision in the ACA that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion.

Section 701 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that:

"A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States: Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for compliance."

First, the House Speaker must show that he suffered a legal wrong because of agency action, or was adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute. What legal wrong did the Speaker suffer? How was the Speaker adversely affected or aggrieved by the Treasury Rule that extended the deadline?

Section 706 of the APA provides that:

"To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall -

(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and

(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be -

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;

(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;

(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;

(D) without observance of procedure required by law;

(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or

(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.

In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error."

The Speaker will have to prove that the Treasury rule was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

We must now look to case law to see what the courts say constitutes an arbitrary or capricious Agency Rule.

To make a long story short, the Supreme Court has established a rule that says:

"An agency's decision not to take enforcement action is presumed immune from judicial review under § 701(a)(2). Such a decision has traditionally been "committed to agency discretion."

The presumption can be overcome, but according to the case law, the Treasury Rule comes nowhere close to what is required to overcome the presumption.

Bottom line is that a suit against the President by the Speaker for extending the deadline for the employer mandate has as much chance as a snowball in hell. A suit by the Speaker against the Treasury Secretary has as much chance as a one legged man in a butt kicking contest.