Seems to me Greg Sargent has come up with the reason why we should be cheering Boehner on in his suit against President Obama. Sargent cites colleague, Paul Kane:
Boehner declined to spell out which specific actions would be addressed in the suit, which have included a 2012 decision not to deport children of illegal immigrants and this month’s order to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. Those executive orders came after the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate deadlocked on these issues over the past few years, taking no action. ...Kane,WaPo
Well, raise those issues again and it only exacerbates the issue that puts the Congress at 16% approval rating.
As for Boehner ...in a bunch of low ratings for Congressional leadership -- including Pelosi, McConnell, Reid -- Boehner is by far the lowest. Way below Nancy Pelosi.
So now the tan man threatens to take the President to court on issues like immigrant deportation and a refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Then what? As Sargent writes: "...The raising of any specifics will only serve as a reminder of the fronts on which Republicans have refused to legislate."
Congress didn't do its job. Boehner ducked political responsibility. President had to act.
Will the lawsuit cite Obama’s de-prioritization of deportations of DREAM kids? House Republicans have already voted to end that policy. But bringing it up again could help underscore that for all practical purposes, the GOP’s primary policy response to the immigration crisis has been to implicitly demand the deportation of as many kids and other low-level offenders from the interior as possible.
Will the lawsuit cite Obama’s new EPA rules as evidence of flouting Congress, as Kane suggests? That could help underscore that Republicans refuse to legislate in the face of climate change, a reminder that the GOP remains the anti-science party.
Will the lawsuit cite Obama’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court or his vow of an executive order to ban workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees of federal contractors? That could help underscore that the House GOP won’t vote on a broader bill to end anti-gay workplace discrimination, which perhaps isn’t a good message for a party that wants to project inclusiveness and has even discussed being more solicitous towards young conservatives’ shifting attitudes on gay rights. ...GregSargent,WaPo