Speaker of the House of Idiots

It had to happen sooner or later.

Being a boob does not generally elevate one to the level of idiocy.  However, a consistent and willful disregard for reality while perpetually reaping the consequences of one's actions could be construed as such.

This story starts with a little known group in the House of Representatives, known as BLAG.  BLAG directs the "House Office of General Counsel" (essentially the lawyers for the H.o.R.).  BLAG consists of the speaker and the majority and minority leaders and whips.  It is essentially, during times of polarized partisanship, a rubber stamp for the majority. 

Originally the office that evolved into "House Office of General Counsel" handled things like routine contracts.  In the 1970's, the House authorized the the speakership of "Tip O'Neill" to direct the counsel to intervene on "Constitutional" matter.  In 1983, the counsel represented the H.o.R. in a case known as "Chadha vs. INS".  In this case, the H.o.R.'s standing was determined to be valid because the House's right to veto Attorney General decisions was held by the courts in case to be an UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.  The House lost their argument in this case.  Ironically, one of the primary arguments in this case was that it was a "political question" and therefore not "justiciable".  After that case, the House leadership, without a vote of congress, established the "House Bipartisan Leadership Group".  This group acted as "intervenor" and/or "amicus" (but never as "plaintiff").

The BLAG was formed in 1993 by the Dem-led House along with the "House Office of General Counsel" under adoption of a "rule" (not a law) establishing that the counsel office would be under the control of the Speaker who shall "consult" with the BLAG on judicial matters.  Again, ironically, the Republicans failed to introduce an amendment that would have required a House vote for certain types of matters to be litigated by the counsel.

Ok, dull, dull, dull.  Essentially when the Judicial or Executive branches do something that "House" (not the bicameral Congress) doesn't like, they use the counsel to try and intervene, essentially extending their power into the other branches' respective domains.

OK.  Fast forward to 2013.  DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was defended by BLAG/House Office of General Counsel before SCOTUS (Supreme Court) because the White House was refusing to defend a law, which was the only way they could "execute it faithfully" because it was considered by the Executive, many courts, and many citizens to be unconstitutional.  So here they were before the Supreme Court, who basically said in their ruling that the ONLY REASON THEY ALLOWED THE HOUSE TO BE THERE, THE ONLY STANDING THEY HAD, WAS A GREY AREA BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE IN GOVERNMENT WANTED TO DEFEND THE LAW.   The precedent for them to be allowed there in the first place was a very "narrow" ruling for this "narrow" and particular set of circumstances.  The Courts have previously held that "political questions" are not "judiciable", meaning (and some judges have explicitly said this in Supreme Court hearings) that the House can't just bring suit against the Executive when they don't like the way they enforce the law.

Now to today...   
Boehner plans lawsuit against Obama over executive orders

WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW:

• The House is doing this because they can't get their laws to control the Executive past the Senate.
• Boehner makes no mention of consulting BLAG.
• Boehner speaks in first person (he is considering using his power on behalf of one house of the Legislative Branch).
• Clearly, it is Boehner's opinion on a "political question".  

So does he arise to level of idiot?  Well... let's go back to High School Civics:

• Three Independent Branches of Government with a "Separation of Powers"
• The House can "impeach" the President by bringing specific charges that would be brought to the SENATE for a trial.
• The House can intervene and act as a "friend of the court" on other pre-existing lawsuits.
• The House cannot direct judges, law enforcement, nor any other executive except through matters of law that are deemed Constitutional.

Where does it say the Speaker of the House can "sue" the President because the has an "opinion" about his legal execution.  There is a reason the branches are separate, and this is clearly one of them.

So why is he doing it?  Recent history!

• Boehner's party has TWICE lost to Obama in the ballot box.
• Boehner's party has failed repeatedly to find legal grounds for impeachment, though Lord knows they have tried.

And let's be realistic.  This idiot has presided over a single party in the House (1/6th of our government) that has abused its power repeatedly to hold hearings, obstruct legislation, derail and sabotage programs and laws, shut down the government, and defame folks all over the place.

John Boehner may not rise to the level of the "Hall of Lame", but his idiocy on this particular day deserves at least this modicum of acknowledgement.