Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, July 17, 2014

A majority of Americans view House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) lawsuit over President Obama's delayed implementation of ObamaCare's employer mandate as a "political stunt," according to a new poll released Monday. The survey, commissioned by liberal advocacy group Americans United for Change, found that 51 percent of voters don't believe the lawsuit is legitimate, versus just 41 percent who do. Moreover, 56 percent say the lawsuit is wasteful spending, with just 36 percent saying it is a good use of taxpayer dollars.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

726

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

The survey found that a plurality of Americans -- 46 percent -- say the suit makes them less likely to vote for Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. By contrast, three in 10 say the suit makes them more likely to vote for the GOP.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

" found that 51 percent of voters don't believe the lawsuit is legitimate, versus just 41 percent who do."

And...I believe that of that 41 percent who say they believe it is legitimate, a good portion are fibbing on what they honestly believe.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-16 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

I really don't want my tax dollars going toward these stunts. Just run the government like you were elected to do.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-07-16 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Anything that orange-faced crybaby drunk does is a political stunt.

#3 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-07-16 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"And...I believe that of that 41 percent who say they believe it is legitimate, a good portion are fibbing on what they honestly believe."

Kinda like the 42% who say they think Obama is doing a good job.

#4 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-17 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

OrangeMan has hired Nancy Grace to prosecute the case, Judge Judy presiding.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-17 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"" "Anyone whose boss routinely uses a taxpayer-funded jumbo jet to attend political fundraisers probably ought to lay off that particular talking point," Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said in a statement.""

'nuf said.

#6 | Posted by americanPLY at 2014-07-17 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Some 58 percent of voters say the suit will not help improve the lives of people like them, and 63 percent say Congress should be more focused on taking action to create jobs.

Still, Republicans might see the lawsuit as worthwhile. The litigation is designed to paint the president as overreaching on executive actions and thrusts his controversial ObamaCare law back into the spotlight."

ObamaCare!!!??

Ben Gazzi!!!, er

Lois Lerner!!!, no?

ObamaCare!!!

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-17 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

Not sure if it's Illegitimate.

Am sure it's a waste of time.

#8 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-17 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of those 51%, an estimated 90% were illegitimate.

#9 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-17 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

What is funny is the same clowns that claim 'fake' scandals, view Watergate as one of the most dangerous activities a president has ever been involved with. Yet in watergate, no one died and a political opponents office was bugged. Scary stuff.

#10 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-17 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

#7

Obamacare - aka ACA: A program making real positive influences in the lives of millions of citizens by lowering the number of uninsured and increasing the access to affordable healthcare while slowing the growth in healthcare expenditures, now on target to save American taxpayers billions of dollars. www.nytimes.com

Congressional GOP: Historically the LEAST productive and most obstructive Congress ever; unwilling to actually govern through any means short of capitulation by their opposition, now wanting to sue the President for doing the job he was elected to do within the time-honored manner never viewed "illegal" until this lawsuit. The same party who chose the person who said the following as their committee witness, allegedly in support of their stated position:

"When a president delays or exempts people from a law -- so-called benevolent suspensions -- who has standing to sue him? Generally, no one. Benevolent suspensions of law don't, by definition, create a sufficiently concrete injury for standing. That's why, when President Obama delayed various provisions of Obamacare -- the employer mandate, the annual out-of-pocket caps, the prohibition on the sale of "substandard" policies -- his actions cannot be challenged in court." www.thewire.com

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-17 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

How funny.

Watergate, particulary the cover-up, resulted in the indictment, trial, conviction, and incarceration of 43 people, dozens of whom were Nixon's top administration officials.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-17 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

What is funny is the same clowns that claim 'fake' scandals, view Watergate as one of the most dangerous activities a president has ever been involved with. Yet in watergate, no one died and a political opponents office was bugged. Scary stuff.

#10 | POSTED BY ROBTHOMAS

Is this Eddie's newest iteration or simply a sick and ignorant joke?

#13 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-17 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#13

There is a rumor that it's Rob the -----.

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-17 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I just saw that on the other thread too.

#15 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-17 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

The 51% are correct, but all that matters is the five loony Catholic Rethugs in SCOTUS.

#16 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-17 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

The GOP should be sued for constantly wasting time on the taxpayer dime.

#17 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-07-17 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Obama administration is making congress all but irrelevant in terms of actual power. Perhaps this lawsuit is a waste of time. But congress needs to do something to act as a check.

Congressional Dems don't seem to care. I guess they view this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to massively grow government in a permanent way, and thus the ends justify the means.

As bad as this current crop of GOP congress is, and they are horrible, the current crop of Dems manage to be even worse and that shouldn't be possible.

As dismayed as I am by all of this, a small part of me hopes the the GOP wins total victory in '14 and '16 and their POTUS is a no-holds barred, rabid idealogue and he/she uses and expands upon ALL of the power-grab precedents set by Obama and cheered on by his congressional allies, just so you lefty clowns can get a taste of what you've created. That's the small part of me. The much larger part of me will weep over the loss of our Constitutional Republic.

Oh, and as for Tony's talking point about this being the most obstructionist and least productive congress ever - I'll counter with this:

The Dems control the Senate. The House has passed all sorts of bills that Reid won't even consider bringing to the floor. As for the filibusters...google 'filled tree' and then see how often Reid has done it (virtually all of the time) and ask yourself what other recourse does the minority in the Senate have if it can't offer amendments on bills that come to the floor? It takes 2 to tango, yet you people see NOTHING wrong with anything the Dems do. Ever. And no, I am not excusing the GOP as they've most certainly abused the filibuster.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-17 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#18

Obama won 2 national elections with record vote totals and over 1.5 million MORE Americans voted for Democratic candidates for Congress than they did for Republicans in 2012. If not for gerrymandering, the Democrats would have gained control of Congress in 2012. The core issues the GOP continues to oppose and filibuster were argued during 2012 (and ACA in both 2008 and 2012) yet the GOP refuses to let the Democrats legislate even compromise proposals that have informed public approval.

I know this means nothing constitutionally, but it shouldn't be ignored. The GOP policies have been tried, led to disasters, and rejected nationally twice without the Democrats being allowed to implement their plans to counter the damage caused by GOP rule when they controlled the White House and Congress. The reason the majority of Americans do not agree with the GOP's designation of Obama as POTUS is because he's largely done many of the things the public wanted him to do and that he ran on! On many other issues, he's angered his own supporters because he's chosen courses more aligned with historical GOP policies than the preferred progressive policies he paid lip service to during his campaigns.

The Senate is dysfunctional because the GOP abandoned comity the second Obama was elected and made many public pronouncements that they intended to make sure his policies failed regardless of the fallout for the citizens themselves -- but for their favored industries and campaign contributors. The Republican Senate doesn't want to insert germane amendments and riders, they want to saddle legislation with poison pills and unrelated riders, trying to render them virtually useless or unenforceable toward their intended purpose. To this day you ignore the 161 Republican amendments incorporated in the ACA, yet not a single Republican voted for the bill anyway.

#19 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-17 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Not sure if it's Illegitimate.

Am sure it's a waste of time.

#8 | Posted by Tor

Sounds to me like you just described the Bush Presidency or maybe he entire 113th Congress.

#20 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-17 08:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#19 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Triple NEWSWORTHY!

or something

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-17 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tony,

For as much as Corky loved your post it had absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Unless of course you are suggesting that Obama shouldn't be bound by constitutional restraints because he and other Dems believe the GOP sucks really bad and thus are justified in their actions.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-17 09:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

#22

I guess you've missed the part where the GOP doesn't have standing for this lawsuit even in the words of their own lawyer who's of course changed her tune since February due to political expediency.

The Founders debated this very type of political overreach by a Congress unable to get the President to bend to their will and lamented someday a radical party would seek to empower the Judiciary as the ultimate branch in our tri-cameral system to the detriment of our elective democracy.

I'm so thrilled you champion such destructive measures because the GOP don't have the votes nor the balls to actually compromise and move this nation forward from the expensive and debilitating stasis your party tries to keep us in. That's why we have elections and that's why the GOP keeps losing everytime the entire nation votes, and will continue to for the foreseeable future unless reason takes the place of rabid partisanship and insanity masquerading as some noble constitutional quest is buried with the Confederacy and other seditious claptrap where it belongs.

#23 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-17 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Watergate, particulary the cover-up, resulted in the indictment, trial, conviction, and incarceration of 43 people, dozens of whom were Nixon's top administration officials.
#12 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-07-17 05:07 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Yes, and some of the leading Senators and prosecutors going after the admin were in the same party.

Now congress can't get emails from a mid level bureaucrat because of the partisan politics.

Many on this blog scoff at the notion that turning the power of the IRS against US citizens is different than attempting to bug a political opponents phone. Yet the president they support has authorized the bugging the phones and internet connections of millions of Americans. But because they support him, "it's ok".

#24 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-17 10:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#24 |

- turning the power of the IRS against US citizens

Your rwing activist SC did that, thank you very much, when they put the IRS in charge of the scam called 501 "donations".

What an uninformed whiner.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-17 11:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#23

The Founders didn't give the Executive branch the authority to create legislation, nor did they give the Executive branch the authority to enforce the laws as it sees fit.

I triple dog dare you to show me where Obama has been in constitutional compliance with his enforcement of the employer mandate in ACA. You can't.

Again, you seem to believe that Obama shouldn't have any constitutional constraints because you believe the GOP is horrible. Back in the Bush years I complained about Dem obstructionism. You then lectured me that the Constitution, and all of the checks and balances, including the filibuster (which you now hate), were put into place to protect the minority - they were put into place to prevent this country from being mob rule (rule by the 51%). You were right about this. It was for that very reason that I applauded the 'Gang of 14' with their killing of the 'nuclear option'. A LOT of Republicans were pissed about it and this is what I told them: "You'll be VERY happy about it in 2009 if the Dems re-take the Senate and we have Hillary Clinton as President." Now, if the reverse holds true in 2016 you are going to rue what the Dems did by nuking the filibuster and I am going to giggle my ass off at your consternation (but I'll be far more upset at the longer-term damage being done to our checks and balances). But, now I am the one getting off-topic.

- turning the power of the IRS against US citizens
Your rwing activist SC did that, thank you very much, when they put the IRS in charge of the scam called 501 "donations".
What an uninformed whiner.

#25 | POSTED BY CORKY

The rules governing 501's were created in 1959 when Southern Democrats wanted to compel the NAACP to expose its donors. Those rules remained in place until they were modified in 2002 with the passage of McCain-Feingold. When parts of McCain-Feingold were undone in 2010 with Citizens United, the rules effectively reverted back to where they always had been since '59.

Also, conservative groups, and ONLY conservative groups were subjected to these attacks. Even if you want to make the argument that the IRS amped up in response to CU, you can't possibly justify the fact that ONLY groups that were opposed to Dems and their ideologies were targeted.

Are you being obtuse, or are you truly ignorant as to what actually happened?

Do you even care that the IRS has been destroying material evidence? How about all of the Hatch Act violations?

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-18 08:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

I triple dog dare you to show me where Obama has been in constitutional compliance with his enforcement of the employer mandate in ACA. You can't.

I did, TWICE!

"When a president delays or exempts people from a law -- so-called benevolent suspensions -- who has standing to sue him? Generally, no one. Benevolent suspensions of law don't, by definition, create a sufficiently concrete injury for standing. That's why, when President Obama delayed various provisions of Obamacare -- the employer mandate, the annual out-of-pocket caps, the prohibition on the sale of "substandard" policies -- his actions cannot be challenged in court." www.thewire.com

Now, I want you to show me the Supreme Court ruling that disavows this historical reality as being an unconstitutional action by the numerous Presidents, including W, who've done this very thing. Funny, I don't recall the GOP threatening lawsuits against W when he was instituting his Medicare Part D program, but maybe I just missed the furor.

#27 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-18 09:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Now, I want you to show me the Supreme Court ruling that disavows this historical reality as being an unconstitutional action by the numerous Presidents, including W, who've done this very thing. Funny, I don't recall the GOP threatening lawsuits against W when he was instituting his Medicare Part D program, but maybe I just missed the furor.
#27 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Apples and oranges regarding Medicare Part D.

With Obama's latest extension of the employer mandate, he completely re-wrote the terms - different rules depending on the size of the company. Note, the rules that he wrote were NOT part of the law itself. He also created, on his own, a provision where a company could not reduce its workforce to avoid ACA under the penalty of perjury as they would have to prove intent. Also, not included in the law.

You cannot cite anywhere in Article 2 where the constitution enumerates legislative powers to the executive. You absolutely can't. It's not there.

Also, your source cites standing (a separate issue altogether). What Boehner is stating is that congress DOES have standing as this type of executive re-write harms congress as it effectively usurps congressional power enumerated by the Constitution. Also, this newest change could very well yield a lawsuit from a company that is harmed by this newest change due to their number of employees.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-18 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Also, this newest change could very well yield a lawsuit from a company that is harmed by this newest change due to their number of employees."

IMO, that is the best way to challenge the legality of that move. It would force the courts to interpret the constitutionality of adding the employer mandate in the manner Obama did, right?

Also, is the employer mandate change a "re-write" or merely pushing back the implementation of it?

Does that distinction matter?

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-18 10:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

-Are you being obtuse, or are you truly ignorant as to what actually happened?

I understand that your rwing activist SC Heroes could have set their malicious and odious ruling up under a different authority.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-18 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

With Obama's latest extension of the employer mandate, he completely re-wrote the terms - different rules depending on the size of the company. Note, the rules that he wrote were NOT part of the law itself. He also created, on his own, a provision where a company could not reduce its workforce to avoid ACA under the penalty of perjury as they would have to prove intent. Also, not included in the law.

Your disingenuity is getting very tedious. You know that these are not the grounds for Boehner's lawsuit, so why even bring them up?

In May of 2006, just days before the end of open enrollment, President Bush took administrative action to waive "penalty fees for very low-income seniors and people with disabilities who sign up late" and allowed "the same impoverished beneficiaries to sign up for Medicare drug coverage until Dec. 31."

"In other words, you can apply after May 15th without penalty," Bush told seniors during an event in Florida. "And that's important for low-income seniors to understand." thinkprogress.org


You cannot cite anywhere in Article 2 where the constitution enumerates legislative powers to the executive.

Neither can W and the 2006 GOP that didn't file any lawsuit over his actions. Apples and oranges, really?

#31 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-18 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

#31

Correction. I see where the actions listed above are a part of the mandate extension, hence connected to the lawsuit. However, the major political difference is that the GOP stands opposed to the entirety of the duly-passed ACA, passing numerous bills to eliminate the mandate or ACA in its entirety.

It is nothing more than political theater to then file a lawsuit because the President didn't force implementation sooner in the attempt to keep many individuals and companies from being harmed when the intent of the legislation was to help. The Democrats willingly brought legislation to the floor to assist those seeking the benefits of Medicare Part D and did all they could to help their constituents receive the coverage and benefits the new law afforded them.

In contrast, the GOP has spent untold weeks and hours repeatedly passing and re-passing repeal legislation that has ZERO chance of passage purely for political purposes having nothing to do with actually helping the people who ACA was written to assist. And then they've had the audacity of telling people NOT to apply into the program that even Republicans now say is far better than what they had before. And now they cynically file a lawsuit to force the President to do something they don't want done purely to highlight their displeasure with the legislation?

How does this help the people who need what ACA has provided?

#32 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-18 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

And now they cynically file a lawsuit to force the President to do something they don't want done purely to highlight their displeasure with the legislation?

You're fixated on the politics and they are irrelevant to this issue.

I triple-dog dared you to point out where in Article II the president is enumerated to legislate. You failed to answer that.

Look, I get why you're pissed at the GOP. But, the fact is this administration, as a matter of routine, has grossly exceeded its enumerated powers. These accusations of 'lawless administration' aren't manifesting out of nowhere. All of these SCOTUS slap-downs didn't happen by accident.

This lawsuit may prove to be counter-productive. But congress HAS to act as a check against Executive over-reach. Impeachment is not an option at present, so outside of this lawsuit, the only other tool available is control of the purse-strings, which is probably the route they should have taken.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-18 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Im much more comfortable with the money being spent on gov oversight rather than another obama family vacation... but yeah, theyll find money for that regardless...

#34 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-07-18 04:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tony (if you are still lurking),

Please read this:

online.wsj.com

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-19 10:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

- mindless garbage.

Better known as, "history".

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-19 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, better known as 'condescension'.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-19 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Cork,

I give you #40 as Exhibit A.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-19 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

#46 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2014-07-19 11:49 AM | FLAG: Rwing Apologist

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-19 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

#46 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2014-07-19 11:49 AM | FLAG: Rwing Apologist

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-19 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag: Ad hominem

#48 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-19 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nulli whining about ad hominem... what a joke!

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-19 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Especially after creating a Strawman ad hominem in 46.

At least that's innovative, strawman ad hominem... putting words in someone's mouth.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-19 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is not 'passive agressive', Cork:

There is not part of the Koch brothers bodies those hacks won't kiss and apparently Jeff, you're just as willing though your price is much lower.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-19 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

BTW - I am not complaining about the ad hominem. I am simply pointing out that you are wrong to state that I started it.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-19 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Raise your prices, Hot Lips.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-19 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

In the opinions of the right we are supposed to stand by and watch them dismantle everything in this country that ever benefited the middle class and not get angry about it. Not say anything to express our outrage. Sorry, I simply can't do that. Folks like Jeff need to understand that they can side with the enemies of the middle class but that the rest of us don't have to like them or respect them for it. I simply don't. I can't stand people who live good lives made possible by the very people they malign today. They, like Ayn Rand, will someday enjoy the benefits from the very same federal government programs they detest. I have a brother like that, he and I never speak.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-19 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you think Democrats' policies are benefiting the middle class then I have a bridge to sell you, Danni.

You can make the case that Dems give a lot of free stuff to the poor. You can certainly make a case that Dem policies are a massive boon to their politically connected extremely rich allies.

Middle class? Their policies are terribly destructive to the middle class.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-19 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort