Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Irony alert: Al Gore sues Al Jazeera for fraud

Ironyalert:AlGoresuesAlJazeerafor

Irony alert: Al Gore sues Al Jazeera for fraud

posted at 5:31 pm on August 16, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Honesty, it’s difficult to know where to begin tracking the irony in this story. Al Gore launched Current TV in large part on the financial and political basis of his global-warming crusade and entrepreneurship, which predictably went nowhere even with high-profile headliners like Keith Olbermann. Gore then improbably convinced Al Jazeera — which is owned by the royal family of the oil-pumping emirate of Qatar — that the channel was worth a half-billion dollars on the basis of its penetration into cable and satellite-TV systems in the US. That deal, by the way, got cinched only after Gore began accusing some of those cable and satellite system operators of bigotry for threatening to drop Current TV’s slots if the deal went through — which would have cost Gore a $100 million payday.

Fast forward eighteen months, when Al Jazeera America is no more a household name than was Current TV before the sale. According to Gore, they’ve balked at making payments on the bloated cheeseburger he sold them, so Gore is suing them … for fraud:

Former Vice President Al Gore has filed a lawsuit against the Middle Eastern media group Al Jazeera, accusing it of fraud and breach of contract in its $500 million purchase of Mr. Gore’s Current TV cable channel.

The dispute centers on Al Jazeera’s refusal to turn over “tens of millions of dollars” remaining in an escrow account and still owed to the selling shareholders of Current TV, according to a statement from David Boies, the lawyer representing Mr. Gore and a Current TV co-owner, Joel Hyatt, who are suing on behalf of all the selling shareholders.

“Al Jazeera America wants to give itself a discount on the purchase price that was agreed to nearly two years ago,” Mr. Boies said. “We are asking the court to order Al Jazeera America to stop wrongfully withholding the escrow funds that belong to Current’s former shareholders.”

Well, if anyone knows about fraud, it’s Al Gore. After all, he’s the same man who took the half-billion-dollar deal from the Qataris while claiming not to be a hypocrite about climate change by drenching himself in oil money. He shouldn’t be surprised at the sudden refusal by AJA to pay the overpriced bill for the bill of goods Gore sold them. After all, as a wise man once intoned: “There’s no such thing as ethical oil.” Unless they’re stuffing the proceeds into your pocket, of course.

But Gore isn’t the only practitioner of irony in this tale of woe. AJA, which styles itself as a news outlet, wants the court proceedings to remain under seal:

The complaint has been filed under seal at the request of Al Jazeera, though Gore and Hyatt have filed a motion seeking to unseal it.

“We do not believe that our complaint should be sealed,” Boies said. “However, despite being a news organization, Al Jazeera America has said that the full complaint should be kept from the public file.  We have therefore filed the complaint under seal until the Court can resolve this issue. We expect that the Court will reject Al Jazeera America’s argument.”

That’s a hell of a news instinct, Al Jazeera! Even this, though, reflects back on Gore. Recall that Gore accused the cable and satellite providers of being bigots for even considering the idea of dropping Current TV from their line-ups if the sale went through. How did Gore make that argument? He insisted that AJ “has obviously long since established itself as a really distinguished and effective news gathering organization.” Don’t forget that the context of those remarks to Matt Lauer was Gore’s accusation in his book that other news outlets had sold out to Big Oil … an accusation before Big Oil came knocking on Gore’s door, of course.

All that said, AJ should pay the price agreed for Current TV, unless it has better evidence of fraud. When the deal went through, the New York Times estimated the clearance for Current TV at upward of 40 million homes in the US; today’s estimate puts it at over 60 million. Even if, as the NYT’s report yesterday notes, AJA “has been slow to develop an audience,” that has nothing to do with the deal for Current TV, which was entirely about access — access that Al Jazeera couldn’t get on its own, thanks to the lack of interest in news from the Qatari perspective in the US. “Slow” is right, but a better word might be “retreating”; they’re getting only 17,000 viewers a night during prime time this year. Compare that to what Current TV did with Olbermann two years earlier:

Executives at MSNBC had no public reaction on Friday to Mr. Olbermann’s departure from another channel. But Nielsen ratings demonstrate that Mr. Olbermann was not able to recreate his success there.

In his 40 weeks on Current TV, he had an average of 177,000 viewers at 8 p.m., down from the roughly one million that he had each night on MSNBC. Just 57,000 of those viewers on any given night were between the ages of 25 and 54, the coveted advertising demographic for cable news. Still, Mr. Olbermann ranked as the highest-rated program on Current.

Olbermann got more than three times the viewers in the demo as AJA gets overall now — and that was considered a failure. If nothing else, this proves that it wasn’t bigotry that kept Al Jazeera off of US cable and satellite systems before the Current TV sale.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Debbie Wasserman Schultz issues clear condemnation of Obama

DebbieWassermanSchultzissuesclearcondemnationofObama

Debbie Wasserman Schultz issues clear condemnation of Obama

posted at 10:01 am on July 31, 2014 by Noah Rothman

It appears that President Barack Obama has lost the support of even the members of his own party in Congress. On Wednesday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), the sitting chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, condemned the president in terms so clear that they cannot be mistaken for anything other than a denunciation.

In an appearance on MSNBC on Wednesday, while discussing the House’s lawsuit against the White House over what they allege is the ideological and selective enforcement of existing law, Wasserman Schultz issued a stern rebuke of Obama’s managerial and leadership style (via Lachlan Markay):

Wasserman Schultz accused Obama of “doing his job less often and at a rate that is lower than any president since Grover Cleveland.”

Sarcasm aside, what she is likely saying here is that Obama has issued fewer executive orders than did most of his predecessors. If that is an accurate interpretation, it is worth noting that Wasserman Schultz disturbingly equated the president issuing executive edicts with “doing his job.” That’s a unique take on the role of chief executive, especially considering that the Supreme Court recently ruled by 9 to nothing that Obama’s take on what constitutes his job violates the separation of powers.

The Democratic line on the House lawsuit thus far has been to mock and deride it, because mockery and derision is the final refuge of those who are insecure in the merits of their arguments. But even those predisposed to oppose the president’s executive overreach see the lawsuit as a dubious exercise by the House GOP leadership aimed at keeping an unruly conference in line.

We shall see. For now, enjoy the DNC chairwoman’s vote of no confidence in the leader of her party and the nation’s chief executive. It’s only a joke until it’s no longer a laughing matter.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Constitutional law professor on separation of powers: “Stop hatin’ all the time”

Constitutionallawprofessoronseparationofpowers:“Stop

Constitutional law professor on separation of powers: “Stop hatin’ all the time”

posted at 3:21 pm on July 30, 2014 by Allahpundit

It is indeed “hatin’,” not “hating,” as both CNN and ABC note, and that’s deliberate. His strategy in answering the GOP’s lawsuit in the court of public opinions is cynical and brilliant: He’s going to laugh the whole thing off as highfalutin nonsense, something the average joe shouldn’t spend two seconds thinking about. Obama the Harvard Law grad knows how significant the underlying separation-of-powers issues are and how weak his case is on the merits. So Obama the politician is going to reassure low-information voters who lack basic civics that the whole thing is basically a goof. That’s where the use of vernacular comes in — he’s as befuddled by this constitutional folderol as you are, America. It’s just “hatin’.” Needless to say, had George Bush responded to liberal worries about presidential signing statements by jovially accusing them of “hatin’,” the media would have dumped in its pants. MSNBC hosts would be demanding his resignation for treating matters of grave constitutional concern so dismissively and lefty bloggers would be wondering if Bush wasn’t showing symptoms of being a “dry drunk” in laughing off something this serious. As it is, hackery will prevail.

I’ve gotta say, pessimist though I am, I thought the public would be a harder sell on transitioning to a system of government by executive decree than telling them that the opposition’s just “hatin’” and don’t you worry your pretty heads about the details. Evidently it’s time to lower the bar of expectations once again. Here’s today’s clip followed by a blast from the past (2008) back when Obama thought checks and balances meant more than Congress “being mad.”



Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Boehner: This impeachment talk is nothing but a “scam” being run by Democrats to rally their base

Boehner:Thisimpeachmenttalkisnothingbuta

Boehner: This impeachment talk is nothing but a “scam” being run by Democrats to rally their base

posted at 2:41 pm on July 29, 2014 by Allahpundit

When the man’s right, he’s right. Byron York had a nifty piece this weekend about the Dems’ strategy here: The more they dangle “impeachment” red meat in front of their base, the more dumb grassroots liberals start slobbering money to beat back the phantom Republican threat. They’ve raised more than $2 million in four days this way, the single biggest haul of the 2014 cycle so far. And there’s no signs they’re slowing down. Steny Hoyer belched out a warning this morning that Boehner’s lawsuit, which is obviously an alternative to impeachment, might just be a prelude to it. Then Louise Slaughter chimed in:

“Republicans desperately want to do impeachment,” Slaughter said at a press briefing in the Capitol. “They’re going to take this step first [the lawsuit], but I’m not in any way assuaged from the notion that impeachment is not the final goal here.”…

“We have no plan to impeach the president,” Boehner told reporters.

Told of Boehner’s comments, Slaughter remained unconvinced.

“You’ve heard all their base and everybody yelling about it,” she said. “For him to say that I think is disingenuous.”

Annnnd, just for good measure, here’s two cents from King Troll as well:

“Isn’t it good we’re talking about this [VA bill] rather than impeachment of the president or suing the president?” [Harry] Reid said of the veterans’ deal. “The American people are totally opposed to this, we shouldn’t be off on those tracks of impeachment, suing the president. We should be legislating.”

Glenn Beck compared the lefty shrieking over impeachment yesterday to the shrieking over Birtherism: There are people on the right who subscribe to both, but the closer you get to the two parties’ respective leaderships, the more you find Democrats are much more eager to talk about each topic than Republicans are. That’s a function of simple political cost/benefit calculations, and right now, Democratic fundraisers are benefiting handsomely.

But … what if there’s more to it than money? Charles Cooke made a sharp point earlier about impeachmentpalooza:

The Levin piece he links says Obama’s looming executive amnesty for illegals “could well be the most extreme act of executive overreach ever attempted by an American president in peacetime.” That being so, Cooke wonders, maybe all the impeachment chatter lately is simply a sly Democratic attempt to inoculate Obama from what’s coming when he finally pulls the trigger on amnesty. If they convince people that these darned Republicans are crazy to want to oust O, and then O does something legitimately impeachment-worthy, what’s the Republican play then? If they act, they’re simply “proving” that Democrats were right about their craziness all along. This is where we are now as a country, maybe — somehow, given a choice between a quixotic impeachment attempt and an unprecedented power grab by the executive in the name of “doing good,” the latter is seen as the lesser of two evils.

Cooke’s theory depends, though, on the idea that the GOP really might go ahead and try to impeach O if he follows through on amnesty if not for all the impeachment talk lately. Is that true? I’m skeptical that O needs to be “inoculated” because I don’t believe for a second that Boehner would risk alienating Latinos by impeaching him for handing out legalization to illegals like candy. On the contrary, my hunch is that Boehner will react by huddling with his team and deciding that they must, must pass comprehensive immigration reform next year to make sure that they don’t end up being outpandered by the White House among Latino voters before 2016. Obama’s already immune from political illness from this, at least within that demographic. Independents are, perhaps, another question.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, July 25, 2014

Americans don’t want House Republicans to sue Obama over executive actions

Americansdon’twantHouseRepublicanstosueObama

Americans don’t want House Republicans to sue Obama over executive actions

posted at 12:41 pm on July 25, 2014 by Noah Rothman

A note of caution.

Republicans in Congress and in the commentariat are fed up with this White House failing to faithfully execute the law, as is its constitutional charge. Regarding this administration’s selective enforcement of the laws passed by Congress – ranging from DOMA to DACA, from recess appointments made while Congress was in session to the delayed and selective implementation of the Affordable Care Act – the GOP is foursquare behind a proposal to sue the president over his flagrant abuse of authority.

The public at large, however, is less than enthralled with the idea of suing President Obama. “Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that the Republicans in the U.S. House should file a lawsuit against Obama, or don’t you feel that way?” CNN/ORC pollsters recently asked the public. 57 percent said that the GOP should not sue Obama while just 41 percent supported the lawsuit.

On its face, this makes little sense when compared to another finding in this poll: a plurality of Americans think Obama “has gone too far” in his effort to extend the powers of the presidency. 45 percent agree that Obama is expanding executive authority beyond its appropriate constitutional limits while just 22 percent say he has not gone “far enough.” Only self-identified liberals, Democrats, northeasterners, and urban residents disagree that the president has exceeded the boundaries placed on him by the Founders. Another 30 percent of respondents believe Obama’s actions are “about right.”

How do you square these two incongruous results? While a plurality may believe that Obama has exceeded his authority and should be reined in, the public may also think a lawsuit filed by already suspect congressional Republicans is the right instrument to accomplish that.

The public’s calculation may yet change, particularly if Obama moves forward with even more excessive executive actions. Time Magazine, for example, suggested on Thursday that Obama may be preparing to unilaterally implement part of the immigration reform bill, which passed the Senate in 2013 but failed in the House, and extend legal status to up to 8 million illegal U.S. residents. That remains an unlikely eventuality. Barring a similar abuse of power, the GOP has a lot of educating to do in order to convince the public that this lawsuit is appropriate.

And that education effort will be a titanic task.

Appearing on MSNBC with Chuck Todd on Friday for the first leg of an upcoming book tour cum anti-poverty push, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) was asked about only one other issue besides his Earned Income Tax Credit proposal: the House lawsuit.

“Is this a productive – a productive thing for House Republicans to be focused on in an election year?” an incredulous Todd asked.

“We can walk and chew gum at the same time,” Ryan replied. He conceded that the traditional vehicle to rein in the executive would be the power of the purse – a vehicle stuck in neutral while the Senate continues to shield the president from legislative checks. That is why, Ryan said, he will support the lawsuit.

The tone of Todd’s question is instructive. The press, the political entertainment complex, and the liberal establishment in general will frame this lawsuit as a waste of time at best or, at worst, an example of Obama’s persecution at the hands of deranged Republicans. There are precious few examples in the recent past of instances when the GOP was able to speak over the heads of the media and convince an already skeptical public that their course of action is the correct one.

It seems possible, given the general mistrust in the president, that a narrow majority could be convinced that the House lawsuit is necessary. The Republicans, however, will have to stop acting coy and self-conscious about it and make that case. All the while, they will not be talking about economic opportunity, Obamacare, the nightmare on the southern border, or the president’s inattention to crises overseas. Democrats, meanwhile, would like nothing more than to contend that they are dealing with a myopic opposition party which is far more focused on scoring political points against Obama than the concerns of the public.

Republicans may believe that a principle is at stake and preserving the Constitution’s separation of powers though the courts is worth taking a hit in the polls. In an election year, that is a risky proposition and the pursuit of principle could mean the difference between emboldening or neutering the Obama presidency in its final years.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, July 18, 2014

Question for Boehner: Will you use the power of the purse to stop Obama’s executive power grabs?

QuestionforBoehner:Willyouusethepower

Question for Boehner: Will you use the power of the purse to stop Obama’s executive power grabs?

posted at 7:01 pm on July 18, 2014 by Allahpundit

A leftover from yesterday via CNS but a fine note on which to end the week. There are three ways the House could punish Obama the next time he decides he wants to rewrite a statutory deadline for ObamaCare or unilaterally declare war in the Middle East or amnestize a few million illegals. They could impeach him, of course, but that’ll go nowhere in the Senate and will provoke a nasty public backlash against the GOP. That option is too hot. They could do what Boehner’s actually doing right now, suing Obama on separation-of-powers grounds, but most legal experts think the lawsuit is doomed either because the House lacks standing or because courts don’t want to meddle in an executive/legislative scrap. That option is too cold. The third option is to simply cut off his funding. If he wants to continue making law via executive edict, that’s fine; next time he comes looking for appropriations to run the government, Boehner can laugh in his face and tell him to get the money from Harry Reid. Under the circumstances, the power of the purse would operate as the impeachment process in reverse: Reid and the Senate could do whatever they like on funding, but their bills would be DOA in the House. No money for Uncle Sugar until Obama agrees to follow the law as written.

Boehner seems … chilly to that idea. Any theories why? Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why, four months before an election, he doesn’t want to commit to a new, protracted government shutdown to settle a debate over constitutional philosophy that most voters would regard as esoteric and unimportant? As I’ve said before, the main problem in punishing O isn’t Boehner, it’s the fact that most of the public doesn’t care about this stuff. If they like the ends that government produces, they won’t fret much about the means. That’s the stumbling block to impeachment. And to using the power of the purse.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Obama administration to release six more Gitmo detainees

ObamaadministrationtoreleasesixmoreGitmodetainees

Obama administration to release six more Gitmo detainees

posted at 9:21 am on July 17, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The Pentagon has notified Congress of its intention to release six detainees from Gitmo, the first since the deal that retrieved Bowe Bergdahl from the Taliban and/or the Haqqani network in Afghanistan.  This release of detainees from Guantanamo Bay won’t generate as much controversy, as it involves “low level” figures, which now comprise about half of Gitmo’s detainee population. This still may be a deal for the White House, which stands to gain at least a little time, and not just the thirty days’ notice that the Pentagon is required to provide:

The Pentagon recently notified members of Congress that it intends to transfer six low-level detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Uruguay soon, including a Syrian man who is legally challenging the manner in which the military force-feeds some prisoners, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

The men — four Syrians, a Palestinian and a Tunisian — are among the more than 70 detainees who have long been cleared for release from the U.S. detention facility because they are not deemed an ongoing threat. The move would mark a significant step in the Obama administration’s long-stymied quest to shut down Guantanamo Bay, where 149 inmates remain.

A congressional aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity said key lawmakers were notified about the imminent transfer last Thursday. None has publicly criticized the proposal. By law, the Pentagon must notify members of Congress of its intention to release Guantanamo Bay inmates at least 30 days in advance.

Uruguay’s outgoing administration has publicly welcomed the six detainees. President José Mujica has said he feels a kinship with the men, having spent years in prison himself during an era of unrest in his country. He also urged Barack Obama and Congress to expedite the transfer rather than have them become “scapegoats in the current bout of U.S. partisan politics.”

There is another good reason for both the White House and Congress to expedite the transfer:

The six detainees bound for Uruguay include a Syrian man who has brought a high-profile court challenge to the Pentagon’s procedures for forcibly feeding detainees who are on a hunger strike. His transfer would most likely render that lawsuit moot, although there are several similar challenges. …

If the transfer takes place in early August, a consequence could be the dismissal, without a ruling on the merits, of a lawsuit brought by one of the men, Jihad Ahmed Mujstafa Diyab, challenging the military’s procedures for force-feeding detainees who have been on a long-term hunger strike to protest their indefinite detention without trial.

Mr. Diyab was arrested by the Pakistani police in a raid on a guesthouse in April 2002 and brought to Guantánamo in August 2002. On May 16, Judge Gladys Kessler of United States District Court for the District of Columbia barred the military from force-feeding Mr. Diyab, but she lifted the order a week later as his health deteriorated — even as she publicly rebuked the military for using procedures that she said caused unnecessary “agony.” His legal team has made a motion to depose military officials and gather documents about the details of the force-feeding practices.

It may be that the administration would prefer not to fight that battle with Diyab, whose low-level status might have raised questions about why he was still at Gitmo in the first place. Getting Diyab to Uruguay could shift the focus of those challenges on force feeding to a detainee of more significance, whose continued detention would be less questionable. The list of challenges reported by the New York Times includes a Yemeni on the transfer list and a Pakistani recommended for prosecution. The problem with transferring the Yemeni ahead of the challenge is that Yemen is too unstable to send back potential jihadists, so the Diyab release may only buy the US a little more time to deal with the force-feeding issue in court, if that’s the motivation.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, July 11, 2014

Palin makes the case for impeaching Obama

PalinmakesthecaseforimpeachingObama

Palin makes the case for impeaching Obama

posted at 5:21 pm on July 11, 2014 by Allahpundit

Her op-ed earlier this week focused on immigration. Today’s op-ed is a more comprehensive indictment, starting with the case that “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes dereliction of duty, not just statutory crimes.

I want to quote this part:

Impeachment is the ultimate check on an out-of-control executive branch. It is serious, not to be used for petty partisan purposes; and it is imperative that it becomes a matter of legitimate discussion before the American people lose all trust in our federal government.

Impeachment requires moral courage to advance what is right, and it requires political will. A complacent or disheartened electorate may silently endure these abuses from the administration, the permanent political class is only too happy to maintain the status quo, and the mainstream media is not a fair watchdog. So, the nation’s last line of defense is for We the People to rise up and say, “enough is enough.”

Some argue that at best the House might vote for articles of impeachment, but the Senate is unlikely to convict. But that is no argument against holding a president accountable and sending the people’s message to all successors

The only thing necessary to transform America into something unrecognizable is for good men to do nothing! If not these violations and the president’s promise to continue to “go it alone” in ignoring the separation of powers and rule of law, what will it take for you to take a stand? How bad does it have to get?

Ultimately, she’s saying, this all comes down to public outrage, which is exactly right — but that’s why there’s going to be no impeachment. Right? If the wider public shared her many objections to Obama — power grabs, amnesty, ObamaCare, NSA spying, Benghazi, the Bergdahl prisoner swap — his job approval would be in single digits. As it is, he’s at 41 percent, which is poor but not nearly so atrociously bad that any congressional Democrats would feel compelled to remove him from office. Even among the 54-55 percent who disapprove of his job performance, there are bound to be loads of people who think that he’s guilty of nothing more than incompetence, not dereliction of duty worthy of the first successful forcible ouster of the president in American history. I haven’t seen any polls on impeachment lately, but I’d guess that impeachment supporters would start with something like 55-60 percent of the public opposed (all Democrats and a majority of indies) and 40 percent or so in favor (most Republicans). Once the media went to work on “GOP extremism,” Democrats started rolling out talking points about how the “party of no” isn’t interested in real solutions for the middle class, and a few centrist Republicans in Congress publicly expressed opposition, it’d probably move another 10 points against. What then?

Rick Wilson wrote a post for Ricochet yesterday about the impossible politics of steering impeachment through Congress:

Give me your elevator pitch, not for impeachment qua impeachment, but for how the story plays out from the announcement to Obama mounting the steps of Marine One and flashing a Nixonian farewell salute. What’s your Day One communication strategy when we begin impeachment proceedings? What’s the Day Two strategy? What’s the strategy after the first week? Who are the legislative handlers? Who are the key faces for the media? What’s the timetable, the media plan, the surrogate plan…all the boring block-and-tackle stuff? What happens when your rock-solid arguments melt under legal challenges from every quarter?

Did you remember there are other players in this game? Did you forget that the American people are notoriously fickle? Did you forget that the media still yields a mighty power to misrepresent, to distort, and to flat-out lie about what you’re trying to accomplish? What happens when this raises $50 million in online donation for the bad guys? What happens when they start dropping oppo like nukes on every member of the impeachment committee? What happens when Americans who are bored and restless decide you’re not talking about their lives, but just playing inside Washington games? What happens to the message strategy of every GOP House, Senate, and Governor candidate in the country? What happens when this doesn’t turn bring the White House to heel but instead becomes the only rallying cry that could wake Democrats from their post-Obama, post-Obamacare funk? What happens when Harry Reid slits your throat by not allowing the Senate to pass judgment.

All of which, again, is to say that Palin’s right — it’s the public that will determine whether impeachment is viable or not. What evidence do you have, though, that they think it’s viable? Outside of conservative media, who out there in the electorate is terribly exercised about Obama planning to unilaterally amnestize five million illegals once he’s busy shrugging off the current border crisis? Jonathan Turley seems pretty upset, and … that’s about it. The hard truth, I think, is that Americans don’t much care how the federal government operates as long as it gets them to an outcome they prefer. Raising the minimum wage is popular within the general electorate; if Obama issued an order tomorrow decreeing that that wage shall be raised, whether or not Congress approves, that’d be an egregious affront to separation of powers but even that probably wouldn’t inspire much outrage outside the right. Most voters would conclude that they like the outcome, so oh well. Whether that’s always been the case or is something new that’s developed, possibly (and ironically) as a reaction to growing cynicism about government, is beyond my reach. But it may be (also ironically) that our complacent political class, which Palin correctly identifies as being happy with the status quo, is nonetheless a better bet at this point to police itself on civic issues like separation of powers than the broader public is to police it. That’s the only reason I can think of for why Obama hasn’t (yet) issued the sort of minimum-wage order I just described. Maybe, for now, that’s a constitutional bridge too far even for him, although probably not for most of his voters. Gonna take a very high crime for Americans to ever support impeachment, I suspect, even as the weak norms against broad executive control of government continue to erode.

In related news, even some of the more solidly conservative members of the House see impeachment as an exercise in futility. Exit question: If I’m wrong about all this and the public is secretly ready to rally to the GOP’s side against O, then impeaching him would be a political winner even if Harry Reid blocks it in the Senate. Political parties usually rush to seize a political winner when they see it — and yet Republicans across the spectrum, from Boehner and McCain to Ted Cruz and Erick Erickson, seem reluctant to pursue this one. How come?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Why aren’t Boehner and the House suing Obama over immigration?

Whyaren’tBoehnerandtheHousesuingObama

Why aren’t Boehner and the House suing Obama over immigration?

posted at 1:21 pm on July 11, 2014 by Allahpundit

A little addendum to MKH’s post last night noting that the House’s big separation-of-powers lawsuit will focus on ObamaCare’s employer mandate, not O’s immigration policies. Immigration was what inspired Palin to write her impeachment op-ed; it’s certainly a livelier issue at the moment than O-Care is. Why skip it?

You already know part of the answer. Like I said Wednesday, it would be weird for Boehner to have spent 18 months calling for comprehensive reform in the name of impressing Latinos, only to turn around and sue O for using his executive power to give DREAMers a break on deportation. I thought there was still a chance that immigration would end up in the suit, maybe because the border crisis had forced Boehner’s hand politically or maybe because Boehner was worried about O’s next executive amnesty and wanted to try to preempt it in court, but the politics of suing over immigration were going to be dicey no matter what. No surprise that he chose in the end to skip it, especially at a moment when even Republicans like John McCain are risking a Latino backlash by demanding more enforcement.

But there are other reasons too. For starters, Boehner may be betting that the border crisis will quiet down before fall and ObamaCare will reemerge as a key election issue, especially when the 2015 premiums are released. If he’s right, a lawsuit based on the employer mandate will be more salient than one based on immigration. If he wins and the mandate is forced to take effect, no biggie: There’s almost certainly a consensus in Congress at this point to repeal it. Beyond that, though, my sense is that he’s got a stronger case in attacking the mandate than he does attacking DACA, Obama’s 2012 amnesty for DREAMers. The latter can, kinda sorta, be defended as an act by the executive to prioritize among removal cases for a system that’s heavily backlogged. We need to take kids off the list, he’ll say, because America’s deportation machinery simply can’t cope. By contrast, there’s really no logistical excuse for not enforcing the mandate. The law is unambiguous. Obama’s clearly in violation. His argument will be that the executive needs a little leeway when a new program is being implemented, but that’s a hard argument to make given that his party wrote the law and he signed it. If he wanted some leeway, he should have added it to the bill.

So Boehner’s playing his strongest hand. And that’s very important in this case because, as Mark Levin rightly argued the other day, the stakes of losing are potentially high. If a federal judge throws this suit out, Obama will spin it as legal vindication for his executive power grabs, which of course means more power grabs. Meanwhile, Boehner will have no options left except cutting off funding for government projects, which risks a small, ephemeral backlash a la the aftermath of last year’s shutdown, or impeachment, which risks a much nastier backlash. If it turns out that the suit ends up languishing in court for the rest of O’s term and never ends up being resolved, Boehner can probably live with that. He’ll tell righties that he showed his good faith by bringing the suit in the first place, now leave him alone. He can’t live with losing, though. That’ll leave him in a spot.

Exit question one: As Byron York said on Twitter last night, it’s a little … odd that the GOP, which has voted to repeal ObamaCare 50 times or so already, is now suing Obama to enforce it, huh? Expect Democrats to have fun with that. Exit question two: What if the suit’s languishing next year and O finally follows through on that mass amnesty he’s planning? Does Boehner amend the suit to include immigration at that point? Does he cut off funding for something? Or does he dare not do any of that, given that the GOP’s presidential field will be nervous about how Latinos will react?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Boehner: Yes, our lawsuit against Obama might include immigration

Boehner:Yes,ourlawsuitagainstObamamightinclude

Boehner: Yes, our lawsuit against Obama might include immigration

posted at 4:01 pm on July 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

I’m honestly surprised. You can see the leftist spin coming from a mile away: “REPUBLICANS SUE TO KEEP LATINO MIGRANTS OUT.” (Here’s Brian Beutler at TNR with a sneak preview.) That’s the precise opposite of the message that the GOP leadership wants to push before 2016. The obvious move is to leave immigration out of the House’s suit and to target less politically fraught examples of Obama’s executive power grabs, like suspending ObamaCare’s employer mandate, instead.

So why is Boehner considering it?

Speaker John Boehner said he is considering including executive actions on immigration as part of the House’s lawsuit against President Barack Obama.

“Yes we are,” the Ohio Republican said on Wednesday…

Boehner did not elaborate on what immigration policy the lawsuit may consider, many GOP lawmakers have zeroed in on a 2012 directive from the Obama administration that effectively halted deportations for hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants who grew up in the United States.

They’re going to sue O to overturn his 2012 amnesty for DREAMers? “REPUBLICANS SUE TO KICK LATINO CHILDREN OUT.”

Three possibilities here. One: Plain and simple, the politics have changed. Dave Brat beat Cantor by calling him an amnesty shill while voters were watching tens of thousands of illegals from Central America stream across the border. Independents might have tolerated a soft-on-amnesty push before, but now Boehner’s concluded that they want to see stern action on security before the midterms. Adding immigration to the lawsuit is a nod to that, however liberals might spin it.

Two: It’s just blather. Boehner knows they’re not going to include immigration in the Obama lawsuit — his masters at the Chamber of Commerce would never allow it — but he needs to pretend for the time being, while conservatives are zeroed in on the border crisis. The whole point of the lawsuit is to show righties that House Republicans object to O’s threat to separation of powers. If he refuses to add immigration to the litany of complaints, at a moment when Obama’s promising a mass amnesty of illegals who are already here and tea-party hero Sarah Palin is demanding impeachment, it’ll defeat the whole purpose. He’s got to give righties some hope that immigration will be part of this, at least for now.

Three: Boehner really does intend to include immigration in the suit, knowing full well that the left will brutalize the GOP over it. He has no choice, though. Remember, the ultimate goal of Beltway Republicans in their now years-long amnesty push is to impress Latino voters by showing that the GOP is willing to play ball on legalizing illegals, which in turn will (eventually) make Latinos more inclined to vote Republican. That’s what all of this has been about politically. If Obama now turns around and issues a mass amnesty on his own, the Republican dream of a mega-pander to Latinos will be up in smoke. As much as they hate to give the left a new reason to call them the “party of deportations” a la Beutler, they’d hate even more if Obama ends up earning all of the goodwill with Latinos that Republicans were hoping to share. If the lawsuit’s successful, it could in theory block Obama from issuing that mass amnesty, whereupon Boehner could turn around next year, swallow hard, and pass comprehensive immigration reform, thus fulfilling the establishment’s pander-y hopes. At the very least, the mere prospect that a federal judge might nullify an executive amnesty may make Obama think twice about going ahead with it.

That makes me wonder. If National Journal’s right that the GOP is planning a “potentially dramatic” vote to authorize the suit at the end of July, right before they head out for their August recess, what will this do to Obama’s timeline in issuing his amnesty? I’ve explained in other posts why I think he’ll wait ’til next year — the politics are simply too unpredictable right before the midterms — but lefties like Greg Sargent are nudging him to go big and to do it soon, notwithstanding the daily news about more illegals coming across the border. Maybe the lawsuit will inspire O to act sooner rather than later. Lefties will appreciate the act of defiance if Obama turns around in August and issues his order, right after being slapped with the suit. And the longer the new policy is in effect, the more a federal judge might hesitate to strike it down — in which case, Obama has a strong incentive to get it done quickly. Cross those fingers and hope for the best, red-state Democrats!

While you take all of that in, enjoy Mika Brzezinski being reduced nearly to tears at the thought of Precious facing an impeachment charge.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, July 7, 2014

Will Boehner’s lawsuit target non-enforcement of Obamacare?

WillBoehner’slawsuittargetnon-enforcementofObamacare?

Will Boehner’s lawsuit target non-enforcement of Obamacare?

posted at 8:41 pm on July 7, 2014 by Noah Rothman

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is reportedly planning to put a vote authorizing a lawsuit against the Obama administration before the House toward the end of the month. Since it was announced, there has been much discussion about the efficacy of this lawsuit, with commentators on the left and the right labeling it a “stunt.” Jazz Shaw has the definitive take on this debate.

While much ink has been spilt debating force of the House lawsuit as a political weapon, but comparatively little has been devoted to discussing on what grounds Boehner will sue the administration. With a variety of executive actions and selectively enforced statues to choose from, Boehner has a veritable embarrassment of riches of issues on which to base his suit.

With that in mind, Republicans are reportedly factoring in political considerations:

“Sources on and off Capitol Hill have doubts that Boehner would target any immigration action, a move that could alienate Hispanic voters and give political fodder to those who already seek to paint the Republican party as nativist,” Roll Call’s Daniel Newhauser reported on Monday.

With the political health of the Republican Party in mind, Boehner is reportedly likely to focus on the Obama administration’s failure to faithfully enforce his signature legislative achievement: the Affordable Care Act.

A more likely scenario, sources noted, would be for Boehner to target one of Obama’s executive actions relating to the Affordable Care Act. The administration has delayed key deadlines in the law’s implementation, for instance the mandate that employers provide health coverage to their employees.

Earlier this year, the administration also quietly changed provisions in the law making billions of taxpayer dollars available as risk insurance in case companies lose money by providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act.

Newhauser quotes George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley who suggests that a suit centered on the ACA’s various delays and relaxed enforcement directives which have altered the original law passed by Congress in 2010 is most likely to be heard in court. Turley added, however, that the suit will have to be narrow in scope if the courts take up a dispute between the legislative and executive branches – something the judiciary usually resists.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair