What I don’t understand is why someone hasn’t filed suit to stop the waivers by Nero without legislative approval.
Why hasn’t the House Leaders filed suit in federal Court?
Why hasn’t the House Leaders filed suit in federal Court?
My guess is that the courts won't touch this until the acts the waivers were granted to counteract have gone into effect.
You know, given Robert's ruling that Obamacare is a tax, the waivers would be totally illegal. The executive branch cannot give "waivers" to a tax.
Mark
Judicial Watch Files Suit on behalf of Kawa Orthodontics against Treasury & IRS to Overturn Delay of Obamacare Employer Mandate
“We obviously object to the employer mandate and the entire Obamacare law, but we understand that, under the U.S. Constitution, the law can only be changed by legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president. President Obama would delay the damage of his health care scheme until after the 2014 congressional elections. But politics do not trump the Constitution or the rule of law,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And to paraphrase Ulysses S. Grant, the best way to ensure the repeal of a bad law is to enforce it vigorously.”
A major problem is that even though there exist illegitimate actions for which no remedy is possible, courts generally only consider cases where party presenting the case is seeking some remedy on its own behalf. Worse, the fact that an action is found not to justify a remedy is often taken to imply that the action is--at least de facto--legitimate.
The legitimacy of a tax policy which unfairly targets some people may be challenged by anyone who is targeted, on the basis that if the policy was illegitimate the court may order a refund of monies the plaintiff had been illegitimately compelled to pay. The legitimacy of waivers, however, may not be challenged in such fashion. Those who don't receive waivers could argue that they should be entitled to them, but cannot argue that the waivers are illegitimate since that would imply that the finding that they weren't entitled was correct. Those who do receive waivers generally cannot challenge them, since the only remedy the court could impose (denying the waiver) is one for which they wouldn't need the court's assistance. The only way in which I could see that people could bring action requesting the court to find illegitimate a waiver to which they would be entitled would be if eligibility for that waiver made them ineligible for something else to which they claim they are legitimately entitled. Even there, the plaintiffs would have no basis for seeking any remedy beyond the ability to receive the latter benefit if they voluntarily decline the waiver they claim to be illegitimate.