GOP votes to sue Obama to require enforcement of a law they oppose

[hog88]

I disagree. I think OP's original point -- that the GOP called for a delay in the mandate, Obama delayed the mandate, and the GOP are suing him for doing what they wanted -- is valid.

That in the GOP's view it had to be by their hand is kind of weak to me, especially when the effect of what they are doing is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to FORCE the administration to enforce a part of the law that the GOP itself says bad, in order to get votes.

I find that absolutely mind bogglingly dumb, and the height of partisan bickering stalling any sort of progress on anything.

Obama refused to go through the proper procedures for a delay. Why? It would have opened the law up to change. Your premise is flawed and illogical.

 

[hog88]

Look up the definition of ideology hoggy And there are elections in Somalia, though they are relatively pointless. The main point on Somalia is that it has no formal economy.

Again, how does Rand Paul's views equate to Somalia?

 

[hog88]

You did nothing Hog.

Nothing?

Get out from under your queens skirts and be a big boy.

 

[utvolpj]

I don't mind that they wanted to register their disapproval of it. I just don't see the need for that yet again, since they have voted to repeal it so many times. I mean, we get it already.

When it gets to the point that you sue to enforce a law you say is bad, to overcome a delay that you actually called for, its just nutty to me.

But delaying a law you claim to be magical isn't nutty? Exempting millions of your cronies and donors from this miracle law makes sense?

You aren't consistent. Obama and all the people supporting the ACA should be overjoyed that the GOP wants it implemented immediately. Why aren't you?

 

[CNCVol88]

Again, how does Rand Paul's views equate to Somalia?

Because it doesn't include fellating the federal government.

 

[lawgator1]

But delaying a law you claim to be magical isn't nutty? Exempting millions of your cronies and donors from this miracle law makes sense?

You aren't consistent. Obama and all the people supporting the ACA should be overjoyed that the GOP wants it implemented immediately. Why aren't you?

If they sued over selective enforcement that would be one thing. This is suing specifically over the delay in the employer mandate -- something the GOP itself explicitly called for and voted to do months before the administration did exactly what the GOP sought. It makes no sense.

 

[CNCVol88]

If they sued over selective enforcement that would be one thing. This is suing specifically over the delay in the employer mandate -- something the GOP itself explicitly called for and voted to do months before the administration did exactly what the GOP sought. It makes no sense.

If the law is as wonderful as we were told why delay an create exceptions?

 

[utvolpj]

If they sued over selective enforcement that would be one thing. This is suing specifically over the delay in the employer mandate -- something the GOP itself explicitly called for and voted to do months before the administration did exactly what the GOP sought. It makes no sense.

Doesn't matter (and they aren't suing yet despite what you've posted). If you're in favor of the ACA being implemented then you should applaud the move by the GOP to get it going. If you don't then you're simply in favor of party politics over principle. Which is it?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

If they sued over selective enforcement that would be one thing. This is suing specifically over the delay in the employer mandate -- something the GOP itself explicitly called for and voted to do months before the administration did exactly what the GOP sought. It makes no sense.

:good!: All you're doing is just regurgitating the lefts talking points & trying your best to sound important as if you really care about this mess your king has caused.

 

[alexmanu]

You already started the insults. That is not what the two employees who work for NHS said. I didn't get mixed up or misinterpret what they said. If you are a foreign visitor and don't have an insurance card you will not be treated. Why do you think we should want to be like you guys? You can't even protect yourself. Why would you want us to change from a free market capitalist system that saved your asses more than once and was the shinning beacon for freedom for the world.? We don't want to be like you.

Nah even the foreign visitor aspect which you have suddenly added is BS, you will be treated. Just admit you were wrong dude.

 

[Septic]

Does this actually accomplish anything - or is this just another shiny political distraction? I find it funny that both sides are claiming the high road on such an epic Charlie Foxtrot as a branch of government threatening to sue another branch.

JK Rowling couldn't have made this up.

 

[Danl]

You already started the insults. That is not what the two employees who work for NHS said. I didn't get mixed up or misinterpret what they said. If you are a foreign visitor and don't have an insurance card you will not be treated. .

This is simply untrue based on my firsthand experience.

I thought maybe things have changed recently, but a quick look at the NHS website seems to indicate that it is still not true.

Am I entitled to NHS treatment when I visit England? - Health questions - NHS Choices

I call BS.

 

[alexmanu]

This is simply untrue based on my firsthand experience.

I thought maybe things have changed recently, but a quick look at the NHS website seems to indicate that it is still not true.

Am I entitled to NHS treatment when I visit England? - Health questions - NHS Choices

I call BS.

There are some situations where initial treatment is available free on the NHS to all overseas visitors. These include:
emergency treatment – this may be in an accident and emergency (A&E) department, a walk-in centre or a GP surgery
treatment of certain infectious diseases, including sexually transmitted infections (STIs)
compulsory psychiatric treatment
treatment imposed by a court order
family planning services – this does not include maternity treatment or terminations of pregnancies

 

[volinbham]

If they sued over selective enforcement that would be one thing. This is suing specifically over the delay in the employer mandate -- something the GOP itself explicitly called for and voted to do months before the administration did exactly what the GOP sought. It makes no sense.

They are picking the item where they believe the largest over reach lies - actually changing of legislation.

They chose the item that is most likely to result in a victory on Constitutional grounds. That makes complete sense.

As for the mandate delay, the GOP sought a delay in all (legislatively) (both individual and employer).

Finally, since you appreciate "politics" when your team plays it; if the GOP is successful and the employer mandate is immediately implemented then it could doom the entire ACA which is a political goal.

The only way this doesn't make sense is that it gives the Dems some momentum for the 14 midterms.

 

[lawgator1]

They are picking the item where they believe the largest over reach lies - actually changing of legislation.

They chose the item that is most likely to result in a victory on Constitutional grounds. That makes complete sense.

As for the mandate delay, the GOP sought a delay in all (legislatively) (both individual and employer).

Finally, since you appreciate "politics" when your team plays it; if the GOP is successful and the employer mandate is immediately implemented then it could doom the entire ACA which is a political goal.

The only way this doesn't make sense is that it gives the Dems some momentum for the 14 midterms.

So you, like some others here, are in favor of a lawsuit which enforces what you say is a bad law, just to score some political points for the GOP in the mid-terms?

 

[Sandvol]

This is simply untrue based on my firsthand experience.

I thought maybe things have changed recently, but a quick look at the NHS website seems to indicate that it is still not true.

Am I entitled to NHS treatment when I visit England? - Health questions - NHS Choices

I call BS.

This is what an NHS hospital administrator and nurse (his wife) told me. Strait from the horse's mouth. But, hell, statists would never lie on the internet would they?

 

[Sandvol]

So you, like some others here, are in favor of a lawsuit which enforces what you say is a bad law, just to score some political points for the GOP in the mid-terms?

If it will turn the Senate and the White House over to the GOP so we can get this obamanation repealed? Yes!

 

[Orange_Crush]

So you, like some others here, are in favor of a lawsuit which enforces what you say is a bad law, just to score some political points for the GOP in the mid-terms?

If the law has to be enforced in order to be abolished, then yes. What about that don't you understand?

 

[alexmanu]

This is what an NHS hospital administrator and nurse (his wife) told me. Strait from the horse's mouth. But, hell, statists would never lie on the internet would they?

Dude you are wrong.

 

[volinbham]

So you, like some others here, are in favor of a lawsuit which enforces what you say is a bad law, just to score some political points for the GOP in the mid-terms?

No. I'm actually not in favor of it but I'm trying to explain why your simplistic (and I believe non-genuine) presentation is flawed.

The stated goal of the lawsuit is to restrain executive power. That I support. I doubt this will be effective in that goal but all should be in favor of that goal being achieved.

My preference would be for Congress (including Dems) to recognize they are being marginalized and grow a dang spine but that will not happen.

Finally, this is also not about winning the 14 midterms, in addition to reigning in executive power it is also an attempt to derail ACA since the Senate will not play along. I believe this will be a net negative for the GOP in the 14 midterms.

 

[utvolpj]

So you, like some others here, are in favor of a lawsuit which enforces what you say is a bad law, just to score some political points for the GOP in the mid-terms?

I'm in favor of idiots getting what they voted for. Some are in desperate need of a wake up call.

If you supported the ACA you should support it being fully implemented. The GOP is trying to give you exactly what you wanted but you're fighting against it. Makes zero sense unless you simply want to play silly political games

 

[Kingston Vol]

Many constitutional experts have raised doubts that the courts will take up the case. The legal burden will be on the House to present how it was damaged as an institution by the President's actions.

GOP-led House authorizes lawsuit against Obama - CNN.com

Should be interesting.

 

[DC_Vol]

GOP-led House authorizes lawsuit against Obama - CNN.com

Should be interesting.

That's exactly the problem. The House has its own mechanisms it can work through to reign in Obama's mighty pen and phone, but it chooses to make a stunt of this law suit nonsense.

After years of giving up their authority, now they are signaling they will punt to the courts. What a bunch of spineless buffoons.

The way to read what Boehner is really saying: I want to make a show for my base while avoiding a real political fight where I might get beat up on by the media, Democrats, or Republican establishment.

 

[lawgator1]

No. I'm actually not in favor of it but I'm trying to explain why your simplistic (and I believe non-genuine) presentation is flawed.

The stated goal of the lawsuit is to restrain executive power. That I support. I doubt this will be effective in that goal but all should be in favor of that goal being achieved.

My preference would be for Congress (including Dems) to recognize they are being marginalized and grow a dang spine but that will not happen.

Finally, this is also not about winning the 14 midterms, in addition to reigning in executive power it is also an attempt to derail ACA since the Senate will not play along. I believe this will be a net negative for the GOP in the 14 midterms.

If the goal were to restrain executive power, why would the GOP pick an executive action which it literally supported just a month or two before?

You accuse me of being over-simplistic, but all I am doing is pointing out the obvious contradiction between saying "X will wreck the economy and we think it should be delayed," followed by suing because X is being delayed, as you asked.

Saying it is out of principle about the relationship between the POTUS and the Congress is too easy. Because, if the goal were to prevent bad policy, then you would support the delay.

Now, if the goal is to embarrass the president, or to demonstrate some sort of disdain for him to the GOP base -- and I think we all suspect that is really what this is about -- then I would personally have preferred they just keep voting some more to repeal it. It would be cheaper.

 

[Gramps]

I like the Brit.
He has ballz of steel.

Agree with him or not, the dude hangs in there and makes his argument.

He has made this thread very entertaining.