House Republicans Admit House Republicans Are Making No Sense With Obama Lawsuit
Two House Republicans admitted on Friday that it makes no sense to sue President Obama over executive overreach while at the same time urging him to act without Congress to solve the border crisis.
“Look, you can’t say on the one hand that the president is overreaching by acting without legislative authority and direction and then refuse to give him legislative authority and direction in another area,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), said on MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown.”
The Huffington Post reports:
House GOP leaders placed the onus on the White House to act without congressional authority.
“There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries,” they said in a joint statement.
But that rationale raised eyebrows across Washington after House Republicans voted the day prior to authorize House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to sue the president for acting without Congress in delaying enforcement of the health care law they oppose….
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) echoed Cole’s remarks on MSNBC, promising Republicans were not leaving town until they vote on some sort of legislation to address the influx of unaccompanied minors crossing the border.
“We can’t go home until we pass a bill. That’s why we’re staying here, that’s why we’re going to get the job done,” he said.
John Boehner attempted to clarify his stance on Friday:
Every president issues executive orders & takes action where he can. Most of them, though, do so within the law.
— Speaker John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) August 1, 2014
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tweeted back, “This is officially a hot mess.”
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
32 responses to House Republicans Admit House Republicans Are Making No Sense With Obama Lawsuit
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
M A G August 1st, 2014 at 12:36
Duh. Another case of republicans not understanding or caring how their present day actions affect the future.
MIAtheistGal August 1st, 2014 at 12:36
Duh. Another case of republicans not understanding or caring how their present day actions affect the future.
BanditBasheert August 1st, 2014 at 12:54
I give them 2 hours to “walk it back” after they get their GOP hands slapped.
BanditBasheert August 1st, 2014 at 12:54
I give them 2 hours to “walk it back” after they get their GOP hands slapped.
William August 1st, 2014 at 13:35
They are just throwing meat to their bagger wing. They don’t give a sh*t about the country.
M D Reese August 1st, 2014 at 14:37
I hope they have some interesting town halls…that is if they’re not too chickenshit to hold them.
christianh August 2nd, 2014 at 00:30
If only the “Baggers’ were concentrated in more economically viable areas of the country…
William August 1st, 2014 at 13:35
They are just throwing meat to their bagger wing. They don’t give a sh*t about the country.
M D Reese August 1st, 2014 at 14:37
I hope they have some interesting town halls…that is if they’re not too chickenshit to hold them.
BaronMatrix August 2nd, 2014 at 00:30
If only the “Baggers’ were concentrated in more economically viable areas of the country…
Herb Sarge Phelps August 1st, 2014 at 13:52
I haven’t done a lot of research on how things were in the legislature of Ancient Rome, but seems I recall the legislative body of that time was inept and corrupted by special interest money which left the nation decaying from it. Wonder if they had Boehner, Cruz and Bachmann back then?
M D Reese August 1st, 2014 at 14:36
Yes–they were pushing for the continued use of lead for water pipes, because “god” put the lead here or something. The record deteriorates after that.
Herb Sarge Phelps August 1st, 2014 at 13:52
I haven’t done a lot of research on how things were in the legislature of Ancient Rome, but seems I recall the legislative body of that time was inept and corrupted by special interest money which left the nation decaying from it. Wonder if they had Boehner, Cruz and Bachmann back then?
M D Reese August 1st, 2014 at 14:36
Yes–they were pushing for the continued use of lead for water pipes, because “god” put the lead here or something. The record deteriorates after that.
labman57 August 1st, 2014 at 14:06
Boehner to Obama:
“We can’t seem to get anything done here in Congress, so you’re going to have to use Executive Action to solve some of the most pressing problems facing the nation …
… but, of course, we’ll sue your ass if you do.”
Bottom line: The plan to waste time and taxpayer funds with a lawsuit against the POTUS is yet another act of legislative masturbation by the ideologically-frustrated, politically-impotent members of the House Republican caucus.
I’m sure they all feel much better now.
M D Reese August 1st, 2014 at 14:34
I’d like to take it out of their pay.
m2old4bs August 2nd, 2014 at 01:28
me too
labman57 August 1st, 2014 at 14:06
Boehner to Obama:
“We can’t seem to get anything done here in Congress, so you’re going to have to use Executive Action to solve some of the most pressing problems facing the nation …
… but, of course, we’ll sue your ass if you do.”
Bottom line: The plan to waste time and taxpayer funds with a lawsuit against the POTUS is yet another act of legislative masturbation by the ideologically-frustrated, politically-impotent members of the House Republican caucus.
I’m sure they all feel much better now.
M D Reese August 1st, 2014 at 14:34
I’d like to take it out of their pay.
m2old4bs August 2nd, 2014 at 01:28
me too
Shades August 1st, 2014 at 14:16
Boehner: “Every president issues executive orders & takes action where he can, but only republican ones may do so within the law. Democrats are subject to a whole ‘nuther playbook.” There, fixed it for him.
M D Reese August 1st, 2014 at 14:33
That’s IOKIYAR in a nut shell. Stress on the nut.
Shades August 1st, 2014 at 14:16
Boehner: “Every president issues executive orders & takes action where he can, but only republican ones may do so within the law. Democrats are subject to a whole ‘nuther playbook.” There, fixed it for him.
M D Reese August 1st, 2014 at 14:33
That’s IOKIYAR in a nut shell. Stress on the nut.
cwazycajun August 1st, 2014 at 16:02
so republicons admit they make no sence ..and this is a suprise too anybody???
GunTotingLib August 1st, 2014 at 20:22
That they admit it is a surprise
cwazycajun August 1st, 2014 at 16:02
so republicons admit they make no sence ..and this is a suprise too anybody???
GunTotingLib August 1st, 2014 at 20:22
That they admit it is a surprise
SkeeterVT August 2nd, 2014 at 14:51
“Look, you can’t say on the one hand that the president is overreaching
by acting without legislative authority [The Affordable Care Act] and direction and then refuse to give him legislative authority and direction in another area [The crisis at the U.S..-Mexico border],” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), said.
Hear! Hear!
Not only does it make no sense for the House Republicans to sue President Obama over his official acts as president, they have no constitutional authority to do in the first place.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 (Nixon v. Fitzgerald) that a sitting president is immune from civil liability for official acts committed as president. The Court based its decision on the need to allow presidents to act courageously in discharging their official White House duties by removing the threat of lawsuits.
On the other hand, the justices ruled unanimously in 1997 (Clinton v. Jones) that no such immunity exists for presidents in their non-official, personal conduct. This was the ruling that allowed Paula Corbin Jones to proceed with her sexual-harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton,
That decision reinforced the court’s landmark 1974 ruling (United States v. Nixon) that the president cannot invoke executive privilege to withhold evidence in a criminal proceeding — in this case, the investigation of the Watergate break-in (The subsequent court-ordered release of tape recordings exposing the White House-led coverup of the break-in destroyed Nixon’s presidency).
The lawsuit sought by House Republicans has absolutely nothing to do with President Obama’s personal conduct, but rather with his official actions as president. Nor does it have anything to do with any allegations of criminal actions taken by the president.
As such, the House Republicans do not have legal standing to bring such a lawsuit against Obama. Nor does Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution — which spells out the powers of Congress — authorize Congress to take such action in court.
Only through the impeachment process can Congress hold the president accountable for his official actions while in office — and even then only in the face of hard evidence that the president abused his powers.
Even the most hard-line opponents of Obama admit that no such evidence exists and that in any case, any impeachment action against Obama now would be politically suicidal for the Republicans.
SkeeterVT August 2nd, 2014 at 14:51
“Look, you can’t say on the one hand that the president is overreaching
by acting without legislative authority [The Affordable Care Act] and direction and then refuse to give him legislative authority and direction in another area [The crisis at the U.S..-Mexico border],” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), said.
Hear! Hear!
Not only does it make no sense for the House Republicans to sue President Obama over his official acts as president, they have no constitutional authority to do in the first place.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 (Nixon v. Fitzgerald) that a sitting president is immune from civil liability for official acts committed as president. The Court based its decision on the need to allow presidents to act courageously in discharging their official White House duties by removing the threat of lawsuits.
On the other hand, the justices ruled unanimously in 1997 (Clinton v. Jones) that no such immunity exists for presidents in their non-official, personal conduct. This was the ruling that allowed Paula Corbin Jones to proceed with her sexual-harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton,
That decision reinforced the court’s landmark 1974 ruling (United States v. Nixon) that the president cannot invoke executive privilege to withhold evidence in a criminal proceeding — in this case, the investigation of the Watergate break-in (The subsequent court-ordered release of tape recordings exposing the White House-led coverup of the break-in destroyed Nixon’s presidency).
The lawsuit sought by House Republicans has absolutely nothing to do with President Obama’s personal conduct, but rather with his official actions as president. Nor does it have anything to do with any allegations of criminal actions taken by the president.
As such, the House Republicans do not have legal standing to bring such a lawsuit against Obama. Nor does Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution — which spells out the powers of Congress — authorize Congress to take such action in court.
Only through the impeachment process can Congress hold the president accountable for his official actions while in office — and even then only in the face of hard evidence that the president abused his powers.
Even the most hard-line opponents of Obama admit that no such evidence exists and that in any case, any impeachment action against Obama now would be politically suicidal for the Republicans.
Judgeforyourself37 August 2nd, 2014 at 20:36
Let us hope that any and all “baggers” and the Repubs will be soundly defeated in the mid terms. Let’s send the whole bloody lot of them back home.
Judgeforyourself37 August 2nd, 2014 at 20:36
Let us hope that any and all “baggers” and the Repubs will be soundly defeated in the mid terms. Let’s send the whole bloody lot of them back home.