Intheflorsh
Banned
So then, who are the real socialists?
Republicans to Sue Obama for Not Socializing Medicine Fast Enough
- Thread starter NYCmetsfan
- Start date
- Status
NYCmetsfan
Banned
They're suing him for not doing what the law 'said' (this is a contention as the executive has wide leeway in implementing the law). They contend the law told him to not delay the mandate. I had a bit of fun with it.
The information is in the OP right from the speakers office.
Had the Republican's controlling Congress actually done something in the last 6 years (notice a coincedence there), then this would be a moot point.
The biggest reason the government is in such a mess is because Congress does jack shit all day, except consistently remind us how they hate the president (because he's a Democrat and he's black) and how we need to blow the entire Middle East up because everyone over there is a terrorist.
There's a reason why they're called the Do Nothing Congress
Yep, I await this day.
terrisus
Member
That... Doesn't say they're suing him over him being "too slow"/"not fast enough."
That says they're suing him because he changed a law without a vote of congress and "made a law on his own."
Come back tomorrow and put some effort into it this time, son.
So you think Boehner's actions here are sensible and warranted and not at all hypocritical?
He will come back without thinking this proved his point at all.
It seems to me that the Repubs issue is that he overstepped his authority. I see nothing about time or delay.
In their view, him waking up in the morning is him over-stepping his authority (remember, these are the people who think he's a Kenyan born Muslim and therefore isn't legally able to hold the office of president).
Yeah, I must be missing the sarcasm in the title or something.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The specific thing 'he changed' or overstepped was delaying the employer mandate. They're saying he exceeded his authority by delaying the mandate.
BertramCooper
Banned
We all know that's not really their issue, though. Had Romney won but the Congress remained divided or in Democratic control, Romney would have gutted the ACA like crazy. The employer mandate would have been one of the first things to go.
Though as I said on the first page, I do disagree with the idea that weakening or repealing the employer mandate slows down the socialization of medicine. I think it potentially speeds it up.
? Am I missing something?
terrisus
Member
Alright...
But that still has nothing to do with the "too slow"/"not fast enough" in the topic title...
Where does it say anything about him "delaying" it?
They're saying he "changed" it.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
the last 4 years of the congress. where everything as been overstepping his authority and tyranny.
Boehner was facing calls for impeachment, this is his play to placate the radicals in his party.
Terrorist fist jab?
Edit: There are Republicans who think he was born in Kenya. A few believe his inner circle is filled with Muslim extremists and that he will soon impose sharia law.
The whole birth certificate thing was pushed by hardcore conservatives.
Only natural born US citizens can hold the office of President. Obama's father (his mother is American) was Kenyan and some conservatives (aka Tea Party nuts) are 100% sure Obama was born in Kenya.
What's funny is that even if he was born in Kenya, he's a natural born US citizen due to his mother (same as Ted Cruz, who has Canadian and American parents).
Once the law is passed, it's up to the president to enforce it. Not certain parts of it. All of it.
Sentiment can't factor into this.
I'm not sure a court case is warranted, but the complaint is valid.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
There is an explainer in the OP. It also takes a quick google search as well to understand what he 'changed' (he delayed it a year)
Shit, dude, you know it. It's amazing how people don't know we've had a single payer health system in this country for the past 40(?) years that's been providing good quality care to active duty service members and their families.
It was more a slam at the Republican Party for being a bunch of crazy-ass lunatics. My main point is that no matter what the President does, Republicans will do the opposite and then spin that against him.
They're saying he changed the law by delaying implementation of the employer mandate from 2014 to 2015/16.
Intheflorsh
Banned
While this is true, it's stretching to say that the motivation behind the lawsuit is because they want medicine socialized faster. Their main concern clearly is that Obama waived the policy without involving congress.
To be blunt, it's not like they would have done anything had he involved them.
As long as Obama is President, Republicans and Democrats are not going to work together. Wait, scratch that, they'll work together on copyright regulations and destroying the internet.
RustyNails
Member
Executive branch has authority to enforce a law in its strictest capacity or not. Done. Next case.
His words specifically address overstepping his power by changing the act. The problem is that he changed it, not what he changed. I have issue with the thread title as well. It seems like a spin.
You can talk about what Romney would do theoretically, but it isn't really relevant is it? I think the suit is about Obama's change to the act.
Yeah, the dude didn't answer the question, it was just some rabble rabble rabble; not too different from the drive by post above.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
He is enforcing it. He's to ensure the laws are "faithfully executed'. there is wide discretion in that. Nothing Obama done is special or unique.
It was a joke. Just like all the genderless distopias
Intheflorsh
Banned
I wish. All the republicans need is one judge that hates president Obama and he's fucked.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
It's misleading. Surely this this is dumb enough already without our help.
Not really. They're suing to force him to speed up what they term "socializing medicine" The lawsuit is saying the president broke the law by not implementing the employer mandate on time and unilaterally suspended it.
I rephrased what the specifics of the lawsuits are about to make it humorous.
speculawyer
Member
The two are not mutually exclusive. The manner in which he allegedly "changed a law without a vote of congress" was by delaying enforcement of the employer mandate portion of Obamacare.
Both are true.
Black Mamba
Member
The Supreme Court disagrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_v._Chaney
This has already been brought up and the executive's argument won unanimously.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Remember when the Bush administration changed various parts of the Medicare Part D program during a rocky implementation process, and no one said anything?
An administration has broad power to implement legislation.
An administration has broad power to implement legislation.
NullPointer
Member
Oh yeah, that's inevitable.
I hear Iraq is wonderful this time of the year.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The NSA follows the law as written which gives it great powers. A better case would have been immigration but they don't have the political huevos for that.
That was the "change" they're talking about.
Under Obamacare, many employers have to provide health insurance to certain kinds of employees, or else they pay a penalty. This is the "employer mandate". It's something that Republicans have been vocally against for a long time - it was going to have all kinds of horrible side effects, among other objections. There was some concern by even non-crazy non-Republicans that implementing the employer mandate on the timeline in the bill wasn't going to work; it might not even have been possible. The Obama administration publicly agreed that it wasn't going to be feasible to implement the mandate on time, and so delayed implementation for a year, essentially agreeing with part of the Republican position that it was too big of a change too quickly. The response of Republican Congressmen at the time was vindication rather than outrage - stuff like (paraphrasing) "this shows that the administration recognizes that the law is a trainwreck and we should go ahead and just repeal the whole thing" or "why doesn't the president also exempt individuals and not just businesses from his mandate?" Of course it was also a common position among Republicans that the mandate was downright unconstitutional.
Now what's happening is that Republicans need something to be outraged about and need to be able to perform opposition to Obama in a way that their base can appreciate. So they've latched on to this. And it's amusing, because the actual thing they're suing over, regardless of the reasons they're giving and by their own standards, is that Obama delayed the death of freedom for a year in the face of Congress' expressed will that freedom be taken out back and shot.
Let's look at this logically.
We all know that Republican's hate the Affordable Health Care Act (even though it's their plan, but that's besides the point). We all know they've tried god knows how many times to get it repealed.
Now they're using the fact that the President delayed the employeer mandate of a law that they can't stand to sue him. Had the President gone and went to Congress to delay the mandate, they would have told him no, because their entire modus operandi while Obama is President is to do the exact opposite of anything says, does or asks.
As I said before, they're throwing shit at a wall and praying something sticks. They've basically got nothing and they're freaking out.
We all know that Republican's hate the Affordable Health Care Act (even though it's their plan, but that's besides the point). We all know they've tried god knows how many times to get it repealed.
Now they're using the fact that the President delayed the employeer mandate of a law that they can't stand to sue him. Had the President gone and went to Congress to delay the mandate, they would have told him no, because their entire modus operandi while Obama is President is to do the exact opposite of anything says, does or asks.
As I said before, they're throwing shit at a wall and praying something sticks. They've basically got nothing and they're freaking out.
DoubleTake
Member
I dont really pay attention to politics however every time I do tune in it seems the Republicans are doing something that makes them look absolutely ridiculous.
Someone without bias fill me in please. Ive heard their party is in shambles and split, and I've heard that theyre all working against Obama and his incompetency as president. Which is it?
Someone without bias fill me in please. Ive heard their party is in shambles and split, and I've heard that theyre all working against Obama and his incompetency as president. Which is it?
speculawyer
Member
Hell, I remember when the Bush administration sanctioned waterboarding . . . something we prosecuted people for doing in WW2.
But when Obama temporarily delays enforcement of a portion of a healthcare law that they don't like . . . well that is tyranny! Dictatorship!
They already created the narrative: "Obama has overreached in his usage of executive actions". They have to play along now or they'll look like idiots to the only people on Earth who don't already think they're idiots. Obama's executive actions have been tame and few so there's not a lot of angles they can attack him from. Also hilarious is that some republicans are now pressuring him to use executive action to deal with the border situation. I imagine it's so they can then complain about him being tyrannous.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
He's not ignoring the constitution, he's not legislating, he's using the leeway provided under the law as written and common law precedent . Executive latitude is an established principle of constitutional law and even flat out ignoring unconstitutional laws has happened before.
- Status