Reach back to this time last year, when House Republicans voted unanimously to move ahead with John Boehner's lawsuit against the administration for "overreach."
Originally it was supposed to attack the Administration for Obama's immigration orders, but it morphed into a different animal altogether when Boehner got tired of holding Obamacare repeal votes and decided to sue over the Affordable Care Act instead.
Fast forward to 2015. There's a Clown Car Parade rumbling down the road with Jeb Bush and Donald Trump fighting for the steering wheel, the Supreme Court has dashed the best and brightest hopes for killing the Affordable Care Act via the ridiculous King v. Burwell case, and the President has (rightly) declared the right to health care "woven into the fabric of America."
Not so fast, there. That lawsuit was on hold, but Boehner has revived it, in the spirit of Charles Murray's call to kill the federal government (of which he is a part) by blanketing it with lawsuits. Lawsuits over regulations, lawsuits over everything. If it breathes or is in writing, take the damn thing to court.
The Obama administration and House Republicans are clashing over the healthcare law in court, with the Justice Department blasting a GOP lawsuit as "unprecedented."
House Republicans are suing President Obama over what they call executive overreach, saying Obama is unconstitutionally spending money on an ObamaCare program Congress declined to appropriate money for.
The Obama administration counters it does not need an appropriation because the funds were made permanent and mandatory by the Affordable Care Act. The funds in question are for “cost-sharing reductions” that help insurers lower out-of-pocket costs for low-income people.
The lawsuit raises questions about the separation of powers, with the administration accusing the House of trying to bring the courts into a political dispute between two other branches.
Both sides filed new arguments to the court on Wednesday night that address the underlying facts of the case.
The U.S. district court judge is still determining whether the House has the legal standing to bring the case.
The administration argues the House lacks standing because the case involves a political dispute where there is no particular injury to the House over any other person. But the House argues the facts are relevant in showing it is injured by being deprived of its constitutional power of the purse.
Sounds crazy, right? But I guarantee they've shopped for a friendly judge and are counting on advancing the case, even if Neil Cavuto even thinks they're nuts. Enjoy him educating Michele Bachmann about it last year.
It will never end until we make them stop. Time to de-fund the billionaires behind the Murray litigation brigade.