This lawsuit could be very interesting for Mr. Obama

[Juan]

The State of West Virginia has filed suit against the Department of Health and Human Services

http://www.ago.wv.gov/pressroom/Documents/State%20of%20West%20Virginia%20v%20US%20DHHS.pdf

According to a news release from the state attorney general, West Virginia alleges that President Obama and his administration repeatedly fail to follow the law on immigration, mining regulation, and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
http://www.ago.wv.gov/pressroom/2014/Pages/Attorney-General-Patrick-Morrisey-Files-Lawsuit-Challenging-President-Obama%27s-Refusal-to-Faithfully-Execute-the-Law.aspx

“The President cannot pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore on the basis of political convenience,” Attorney General Morrisey said. “West Virginia knows first-hand the consequences that the administration’s illegal and flawed interpretation of the law can have on our coal mining jobs. This lawsuit simply asks the Court to require the Obama Administration to follow the laws and restore the constitutional boundaries on presidential authority. Unfortunately, the President has shown time and again that he is willing to ignore or go around Congress to promote his agenda, and that can’t continue. Prevailing in this lawsuit will help our state’s efforts to limit the President’s activities in important areas that have painful implications on coal miners and West Virginia’s economy.”

Unlike the idiotic House of Representatives lawsuit, the State of West Virginia will actually have standing in this case.

[WOTR]

I have to head to bed... but I did get through roughly 10 pages so far.  I really like the lawsuit and wish them the best.  Forcing the federal government to take responsibility and be accountable for their laws (and the backlash when it is enforced) seems fair.

I opened this thinking it was going to be about, (as you say) "the idiotic House of Representatives lawsuit" and was rolling my eyes.  I had not heard anything of this and love reading the links.  Thanks.

[WOTR]

Finally through it.  If you want to see action on this thread you need to rename it and have somebody like QK write it up.  Inflammatory accusations and partisan politics works much better than giving links to the actual information...

Anyhow, as soon as I read that it expired in October my spider senses started tingling.  when I read that they may allow an extension I really got interested.  I am cynical.  When they have it set to expire and suddenly make all of these plans illegal just before an election I start wondering how much they want their funding to increase before extending the "administrative fix."  I know- a thing like that would never happen.... They would never say "give our department a 10% increase in funding and we will not destroy your party by allowing the "fix" to expire."

The other problem is when they decide to selectively enforce the law rather than change it.  By deciding what they will enforce today and which groups are exempt they create uncertainty. 

The best points...
53.In short, provided that the two conditions originally announced are met, HHS promised not to act against individual health plans made unlawful by the ACA until just before the next presidential election.
71...By granting the States dispositive authority over the enforcement of the eight federal requirements and turning the States into federal policymakers, the Administrative Fix createsâ€"at a minimumâ€"confusion as to which government is actually to blame for the ACA’s policies. That confusion exists regardless of whether the States choose to actually enforce the eight federal requirements or not: in either circumstance, the States will be held at least partly accountable by their citizens for having made a federal policy choice
72.[The president] said:“[W]hat we want to do is to be able to say to these folks, you know what, the Affordable Care Act is not going to be the reason why insurers have to cancel your plan.” Presidential Press Conference, Exh. 4 at 4. He specifically noted that after adopting the Administrative Fix, it would be the “state insurance commissioners [that] still have the power to decide what plans can and can’t be sold in their states.” Id. at 2; see also Administrative Fix Fact Sheet, Exh. 5 at 2 (“Whether an individual can keep their current plan will also depend on their insurance company and State insurance commissioner â€" but today’s action means that it will no longer be implementation of the law that is forcing them to buy a new plan.”).

Now to try to get some action on this thread... The lawsuit even mentions how this is similar to selectively enforcing immigration laws.  “HHS . . . will be using its enforcement discretion to allow for this transition. Enforcement discretion can be used generally in transitions, as well as a bridge towards legislation. This is something that has been used, for example, with the deferred action for childhood arrivals policy, pending immigration reform.”

[Juan]

I guess, as there has been no name calling, no racial animus, no cursing, the other members of the forum don't know how to respond.

[The General]

So would this case be heard in West Virginia? 
And with how slow the courts move, will it happen while he's still in office? 
It will be interesting to watch, if it moves forward.

[albrecht]

I would've rather they actually filed the suit with regard to, at least what I think, is unconstitutional changes in "administrative" or "findings" from agencies like the EPA and the unilateral stuff he has done towards immigration. I would've thought the EPA, especially in relation to coal, would hurt W.VA especially more than the ACA. But it could be they felt with the ACA they have a much better shot since courts have, because of the APA. But has Obama's minions at the agencies been putting these changes (how we handle the illegals or the changes/delays to the ACA for example) on the public record proposing a rule change, allowing a public comment period, announcing date of implementation, and judicial review? Or is Obama doing this stuff via his Executive Action or other authority (he is not bound by the APA Franklin v. Mass., 505 U.S. 788 (1992))?

[Juan]

It's filed in the DC Circuit, federal court.

[Quick Karl]

Finally through it.  If you want to see action on this thread you need to rename it and have somebody like QK write it up.

Usually when I post a link to a news article I don't say much but let the article speak for itself - then the cockroaches come out of the woodwork and the hysterics begin! But I kinda get a kick out of it...

Darn - now that I posted this thread will be getting all the action you've been missing so bad 

I AM THE LIGHT, and I carry!

[PB the Deplorable]

... Unlike the idiotic House of Representatives lawsuit, the State of West Virginia will actually have standing in this case.

Regarding standing - I don't understand why all the Left-wing pressure groups always seem to have 'standing' when they want to sue the government for something, but no one else ever seems to.

On top of that, if they win they generally get their legal costs reimbursed.  I don't think anyone else gets that in our court system.

[NowhereInTime]

Regarding standing - I don't understand why all the Left-wing pressure groups always seem to have 'standing' when they want to sue the government for something, but no one else ever seems to.

Because left wing groups are generally suing to recover rights lost by corporate or conservative overrreach.

On top of that, if they win they generally get their legal costs reimbursed.  I don't think anyone else gets that in our court system.

First, you're wrong.  Again.

Second, costs are reimbursed because they are often awarded by juries positively aghast at the abuses sustained by people and/or rights denied to people by "wealth creators."

[NowhereInTime]

Usually when I post a link to a news article I don't say much but let the article speak for itself - then the cockroaches come out of the woodwork and the hysterics begin! But I kinda get a kick out of it...

Darn - now that I posted this thread will be getting all the action you've been missing so bad 

I AM THE LIGHT, and I carry!

You're a LIGHT weight and you "carry" STD's you picked up from male prostitutes in Thailand.

[Quick Karl]

What would Bellgab be without nitwit the asshole?

[Juan]

Regarding standing - I don't understand why all the Left-wing pressure groups always seem to have 'standing' when they want to sue the government for something, but no one else ever seems to.

On top of that, if they win they generally get their legal costs reimbursed.  I don't think anyone else gets that in our court system.

It's because they are suing under specific statutes, such as a lot of the environmental ones, that give standing and allow for legal costs.  Blame Congress.
If there were any conservatives with sense, they would sue Homeland Security for failing to file an environmental impact statement before allowing in the illegal aliens.

[PB the Deplorable]

Because left wing groups are generally suing to recover rights lost by corporate or conservative overreach...

Damn, you're gullible.  You'll believe anything the Left cranks out (emphasis on 'cranks').  All they have to do is add the word 'corporation' or 'environment', or tell you something is for the 'children', or it's about downtrodden 'gays', 'women' or 'minorities', and that's the end of any thinking you do.  You're like one of Pavlov's dogs.

The reality is, typically these Left-wing pressure groups are in cahoots with the agency they are suing.  Either the agency or the pressure group decides they want to add some regulation, but the underlying law is in the way.  So they get together, devise their lawsuit, then go judge shopping. 


Now that Obama just makes up laws as he goes and encourages the federal agencies under him to do the same with new regs, they shouldn't really need to go through the charade of 'suing' the government as much anymore.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Second, costs are reimbursed because they are often awarded by juries positively aghast at the abuses sustained by people and/or rights denied to people by "wealth creators."

Wrong.  It's been baked into the law under certain statutes.  See Juan's explanation above.

Guess which party slips the legal reimbursement language into the statute on behalf of their cronies, who they know will be suing over something down the road? 

[albrecht]

Damn, you're gullible.  You'll believe anything the Left cranks out (emphasis on 'cranks').  All they have to do is add the word 'corporation' or 'environment', or tell you something is for the 'children', or it's about downtrodden 'gays', 'women' or 'minorities', and that's the end of any thinking you do.  You're like one of Pavlov's dogs.

The reality is, typically these Left-wing pressure groups are in cahoots with the agency they are suing.  Either the agency or the pressure group decides they want to add some regulation, but the underlying law is in the way.  So they get together, devise their lawsuit, then go judge shopping. 


Now that Obama just makes up laws as he goes and encourages the federal agencies under him to do the same with new regs, they shouldn't really need to go through the charade of 'suing' the government as much anymore.

I recall a while back the Sierra Club actually tried to do some decent environmental work and was concerned about how the illegals were severely damaging very fragile desert environments. They wanted to sue and were pressuring the government do do something about the illegal's wanton disregard for the environment. Even just their trampling caused lots of damage but worse with the defecation, leaving trash, cutting fences, destroying campsites and parkland, etc. It caused a division in the Sierra Club and an internal political fight between those who cared about the environment and those who supported illegals, eventually, the leftists won and they no longer care about all the damage the illegals are doing (they rationalized that illegals would do less damage here than in their home countries since the US has the laws and budget to deal with all the environmental problems they cause.) I recall this was in the early 2000's if my memory isn't failing.

[PB the Deplorable]

I recall a while back the Sierra Club actually tried to do some decent environmental work and was concerned about how the illegals were severely damaging very fragile desert environments. They wanted to sue and were pressuring the government do do something about the illegal's wanton disregard for the environment. Even just their trampling caused lots of damage but worse with the defecation, leaving trash, cutting fences, destroying campsites and parkland, etc. It caused a division in the Sierra Club and an internal political fight between those who cared about the environment and those who supported illegals, eventually, the leftists won and they no longer care about all the damage the illegals are doing (they rationalized that illegals would do less damage here than in their home countries since the US has the laws and budget to deal with all the environmental problems they cause.) I recall this was in the early 2000's if my memory isn't failing.

Yes, one would think the Sierra Club would be against immigration, since it leads to more sprawl and less habitat, more use of resources, etc, in our country. One would think they would be against illegals destroying sensitive and fragile areas along the border when they sneak in by the thousands, but they aren't.

As you pointed out, they had that discussion a decade or so ago - it was even pointed out immigrants would use MORE resources living in the US than they would in their home countries, due to our higher standard of living.  The Sierra Club ultimately decided that if they came out against immigration, immigrants would remember that and be less likely to be environmentalists. 

That was a copout of course.  These organizations are Leftists first and advocates of their stated 'cause' second.  They are part of the 'Progressive' coalition before anything else.

[WOTR]

Usually when I post a link to a news article I don't say much but let the article speak for itself - then the cockroaches come out of the woodwork and the hysterics begin! But I kinda get a kick out of it...

Darn - now that I posted this thread will be getting all the action you've been missing so bad 

I AM THE LIGHT, and I carry!

I remain unconvinced that you are the light, and I envy you for living in a state / country that allows you to carry... But the thread has seen a ton more action since you posted.

[Quick Karl]

I remain unconvinced that you are the light, and I envy you for living in a state / country that allows you to carry... But the thread has seen a ton more action since you posted.

My pleasure!