Talk:United States House of Representatives v. Azar

Lawsuit Moves Past Standing Challenge

News just came out on 09 September 2015 the Court ruled in the House's favor with respect to standing. I feel the Wikipedia article should be updated with this information. There are also a few statements that legal experts expect the lawsuit to fail and all references lead with the major challenge of proving standing. These statements may need to be qualified, or perhaps new legal analysis can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1525:80F5:DD9:15CF:F9B:F72C (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

I have severe issues with this edit

1. It deviates from the style of having the article name in the first sentence of the article. See WP:BEGIN which states "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence", and this should be possible.
2. It puts erroneous information into Wikipedia by saying that the vote was party line followed by a sentence that says that 5 Republicans crossed over and voted with the Democrats, meaning that it was not strictly a party line vote.

How hot is the sun? (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding issue #2, User:Xenophrenic's point that because the New York Times did not call the vote "mostly party-line" using the word "mostly" constitutes original research. My response is that per WP:CALC, which is within the WP:NOR policy, we can use the fact that 5 Republicans crossed over to fix an imprecision in the NY Times article. This really shouldn't be controversial. How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is a low-boil dispute. At some point within the next few months (probably close to the election, if politically calculated), a lawsuit will be filed. Case captions are formulaic, and the caption of the lawsuit, in accordance with the usual court rules about identifying the parties, will be United States House of Representatives v. Barack Obama (or v. Barack Hussein Obama II if they're feeling cheeky), and this will not be a point of dispute. I have no problem with leaving that part as is until then. bd2412 T 22:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  From context, I'm guessing the word "this" applies to point #1? Any thoughts on point #2? How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  Per WP:FINISHED we can leave this bad style for now to avoid unecessary edit wars. Even if they end up never filing this lawsuit, and drop this thing, the opening sentence could still be changed to something along the line of "The United States House of Representatives v. Obama was a lawsuit that was approved by the House of Representatives but never filed." How hot is the sun? (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  It's not terribly distressful to me. The vote was pretty close to a party line vote (it was one for the Democrats), and I'm sure the New York Times knew that it wasn't exactly party line when they decided to call it that. A qualifier would be more accurate, but the deviation is virtually immaterial (particularly when we immediately discuss the Republicans who voted no). bd2412 T 22:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  Following up on "a qualifier would be more accurate", would you object to including the word "mostly" before the words "party line" because the NY Times didn't use that word? How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  I have no objection to that, but I have no strong feelings in favor of it either. I would, however, prefer "nearly" to "mostly" because it conveys a higher degree of closeness. bd2412 T 23:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  "Nearly" is good -- anything to convey the message that it was not a purely party line vote. How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding specifically the 2 concerns itemized at the top:
1) You only quoted part of WP:BEGIN, while the rest of the section clearly explains why it is not mandatory that the page title appear in the lead sentence. If the title were an actual case name, and appeared in reliable sources as such, I would fully agree with having it bolded in the lead sentence -- but it is not. BD2412 correctly points out that it may someday become an actual case name, but before that happens we should not be party to misleading our readers.
2) Party line vote is the wording used by the present source (NYT), so by default it appears that way in our article. I haven't bothered to speculate if the NYT was referring to Republicans or Democrats when they said "party", nor do I think it is important. Perhaps we should look closer at the definition of "Party Line". If we look at Party line (politics), we see this text:

• a party-line vote is one in which most or all of the legislators from each political party voted in accordance with that party's policies.

But if we look at Party-line vote, we see this text:

• a vote in which every member of a political party votes the same way (usually in opposition to the other political party(ies) whose members vote the opposite way).

Note that the above linked competing Wikipedia articles are completely unreferenced, so it's difficult to nail down the definition from those, but reliable sources I've checked agree on one thing: if only one party votes in favor, it can be described as "party-line". The most authoritative source I've seen (Congress: A Political-economic History of Roll Call Voting By Keith T. Poole, Howard Rosenthal - pp. 46 & 35) clearly indicates that "party line votes" do not mean "every" member of the party voted in favor. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There is another edit that was made but was not mentioned above. The word "Republican" was taken out of the description of the action. The cited sources clearly says, "In a 225-to-201 party-line vote, Republicans authorized the House to move forward with a lawsuit against Mr. Obama". I've returned that wording. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Although it's a bit far afield from this page, I would say first that Party-line vote should be merged into Party line (politics), and second that I have now added references in that article to sources that clarify the issue considerably. The Congressional Record (1956), Volume 102, Part 11, p. 15069, states: "A party-line vote is one on which a majority of Republicans vote one way and a majority of Democrats vote another. 2. A bipartisan vote is one in which a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats vote the same way"; another source is Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-economic History of Roll Call Voting (1997), p. 46: "We define a party-line vote as one where 90 percent of the majority party votes against 90 percent of the minority party". Under either of these definitions, this was a party-line vote. bd2412 T 16:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that was weird ... I guess we were reading the same sources at the same time. Just now noticed your comment, which wasn't present when I opened my edit window. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In my mind a party line vote is one where members of one party vote one way, and members of the other party vote the opposite way. If there are other definitions published in WP:RS then that's fine. Good for you for doing that research. As for the opening sentence, as I've stated, we'll postpone this discussion, per WP:FINISHED, until either the lawsuit gets filed or gets dropped. How hot is the sun? (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that would be a "straight party-line vote". bd2412 T 18:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: this is authorized by the House, not by "Republicans"

As every source on this action has described it as being authorized by the House, not by "Republicans". Since the House operates by majority vote, even a party line vote is a vote of the House, not a vote of a particular party. bd2412 T 18:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well said. How hot is the sun? (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Not well said. You have set up a false "either/or" situation which doesn't really exist. The litigation was authorized by the house AND it was authorized by House Republicans. Every source in this section describes the vote as not just a House vote, but also as a Republican House vote. It is common knowledge that House votes are passed by majority; reliable sources, however, felt the need to further clarify that this majority in this instance was also purely Republican.

• In a 225-to-201 party-line vote, Republicans authorized the House to move forward with a lawsuit against Mr. Obama... --New York Times
• GOP-led House votes to sue Obama in first-of-its-kind lawsuit... --Los Angeles Times
• the House Republican plan to authorize a lawsuit... --Washington Post

Adding "Republican" to the lead sentence is both reliably sourced and informative, and does not diminish or contradict the fact that the resolution was passed by a majority of the "House" -- it only clarifies which part. Some may wish to downplay that salient point. I won't immediately push to reinstate the edit (because, frankly, the sentence was a clumsy read in the previous version...), but it should probably be revisited as the article matures. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I really do not understand why you, Xenophrenic, are here. Are you just interested in picking fights? Yes, the lead sentence sucks, but the fact that the lead sentence sucks is because that's how you wrote it. I have already attempted to fix the lead sentence to include the title of the article in the lead sentence (see link in previous sentence in which you reverted my attempt to fix your bad lead sentence), but the consensus is to maintain the sentence that you wrote without the word "Republicans" until either the lawsuit is filed or dropped. We cannot keep the word "Republicans" in the lead like you want because even though the Republicans passed the bill authorizing the lawsuit, once the bill passed, it is considered passed by the entire House. You cited news headlines -- well, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so article leads need not read like newspaper headlines. How hot is the sun? (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the lead sentence sucks...

I didn't say that. I said the previous version, with the particular placement "Republicans" was clumsy. Checking your link to my edit, it appears you are expressing concern about something entirely different. Correct?

• once the bill passed, it is considered passed by the entire House.

No one has said otherwise, and noting that it was done so by a purely Republican vote does not change that fact. So that is not an argument for not noting it in the lede sentence.

• You cited news headlines ... article leads need not read like newspaper headlines.

Incorrect; I cited news articles, and quoted from the body of those articles (one exception: LA Times is also a title). And adding "Republicans" to the lead is in full accordance with WP:MOS. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

My concern, of course, is that your behavior is inconsistent with trying to improve the articles. It appears to me that all you're interested in doing is fighting. How hot is the sun? (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to add that the lead sentence already says that the vote was to 221-205 and that it was party line. The next sentence adds that the 221 were Republicans so your entire argument falls apart. How hot is the sun? (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, so I guess you totally misunderstood my argument. Granted, the information contained in the rest of the lede (with appropriate Wikilinks) can be deciphered to convey that it was a Republican vote, but that is why I used the word "downplay" rather than "eliminate" in my previous comment. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You cannot argue with facts. Here is what the lead sentence says "The United States House of Representatives has authorized litigation against President Barack Obama in a simple resolution on July 30, 2014, by a party-line vote of 225 to 201. " and here is what the next sentence says "All 225 votes in favor of filing a lawsuit were Republicans, and 5 Republicans joined 196 Democrats to vote against such a lawsuit". How hot is the sun? (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't argued against any of that. You just confirmed what I said. Was that a prelude to making a point? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I obviously cannot read your mind, so I don't know what argument you made in your mind, but on Wikipedia, I wrote "the lead sentence already says that the vote was to 221-205 and that it was party line. The next sentence adds that the 221 were Republicans so your entire argument falls apart.", and you responded with "No, it doesn't". I'm not sure if you understand what you are typing, or if you think you are typing one thing, but are actually typing something completely different. How hot is the sun? (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I obviously cannot read your mind...

Obviously; so it would be better to just address what I type. So far, I see that you are quoting some of what I said, and some of what our article says, and I am still waiting for you to state what "entire argument of mine falls apart". Xenophrenic (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should put it in terms that you can understand. My phrasing "your entire argument falls apart" is equivalent to your phrasing "incorrect". You are incorrect that the word "Republican" is necessary because the inclusion of the word gives the wrong impression that it was a Republican action when in fact it was an action of the House of Representatives. You are incorrect that adding the word "Republican" is needed to clarify that it was a Republican led action because the next sentence clearly says which side voted how. So if you prefer that I would write "incorrect", then you are "incorrect". How hot is the sun? (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's drop this for now. The dispute appears to be over. bd2412 T 14:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As a legal matter, it was a vote of the House of Representatives, and that is the source of the historical significance of the vote - this is the first times that a chamber of Congress has undertaken such a vote. To say it was a "Republican" vote implies that it was a House Republican Conference vote, and not a vote of the entire body, and is very likely to confuse and mislead readers. bd2412 T 20:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

100% agreement with your first sentence, and I've already said as much above. Your second sentence, to put it nicely, is not credible. I don't see how any reader could confuse House Republicans with House Republican Conference. Apparently, numerous reliable sources agree with me, since they repeatedly say House Republicans (and sometimes House GOP) without fear that their readers will confuse it with a Caucus action. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Numerous sources refer to House Republicans as the planners or the motivators of the vote only after clearly stating that it was the House of Representatives that voted to sue. For example, the New York Times says in the first line of its article: "The House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to sue President Obama for overstepping the powers of the presidency" while the second line says "In a 225-to-201 party-line vote, Republicans authorized the House to move forward with a lawsuit..." Currently, our own article follows the same logical order, first noting the historic fact of the House of Representatives suing the President, and then providing details about who in the House drove this result. bd2412 T 12:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Good job. Hopefully this will explain it. How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The very first sentence of most references refer to the "House Republican" action. But since you've selected the NYT as an example, let's look at what the first sentence really says: The House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to sue President Obama for overstepping the powers of the presidency — a move that has angered conservatives who call it insufficient, emboldened Democrats who say Republicans are being vengeful, and further eroded much of what is left of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill.

So if we followed "the same logical order" as you suggest, we would also need to note in our lead sentence that the action is not bipartisan, and is viewed as Republican vengeance which some conservatives feel doesn't go far enough. I elected the milder option of simply noting the historic fact of the House Republicans voting to pursue litigation, which is more in line with Wikipedia policy: (Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information which is not already given by the title of the article.)

Technically, it will be listed in the Congressional logs as simply a "House vote" that passed, and not a "House Republican" vote -- and I am in no way arguing against you on that. The problem is that it would be listed as a "House vote" regardless if it passed with bipartisan support, or was unanimous, or barely squeaked by, or even if the House was comprised of 100% Republicans. But Wikipedia lead sentences try to be more informative than that. Does every reader know when they see that the House passed something, that it was or wasn't a purely partisan act? Should we expect every reader to keep reading through several Wikilinks, and assume that they know how many Republican and Democrat representatives there are in the House, or know what a Party-line Vote is?

All that being said, you'll note that I haven't reinstated "Republicans" in the first sentence for reasons I outlined above. I did, however, want to note here for the record that reliable sources and Wikipedia policy both support describing the action as a House Republican vote, and not just a House vote. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The first line notes that it is a House vote (which is the most significant fact about the vote historically), and that it was a party-line vote. The second line very clearly specifies that the "party-line" in support of the lawsuit is all Republican votes. I doubt that any reader will stop at the first line and leave with the impression that this party-line vote was not a Republican-driven action. bd2412 T 22:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I know what the first and second lines of our article currently say; it's in print, after all. You and I don't disagree on what they currently say. This discussion was about noting in the lead sentence that it was a Republican (not just Republican-driven) action, as conveyed by reliable sources. (And for my $.02, since House roll call votes are routinely taken almost every day, I would argue "the most significant fact about this vote historically" is not that it is a "House vote" as you say, but that it is the first time a resolution of this nature was passed against a President.) Xenophrenic (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to postpone my further participation in this specific discussion until after the litigation issue develops a little more. You are welcome to the last word, and my thanks for keeping it respectful despite strong opinions on both sides. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the name

I would just like to note that prior to my creation of this article on August 19, 2014, there were already sources referring to the proposed lawsuit as "U.S. House of Representatives v. Obama" or "House of Representatives v. Obama". See Michael Stern, "U.S. House of Representatives v. Obama: The Problem of Standing" (July 1, 2014); Lyle Denniston, "Constitution Check: Is House of Representatives v. Obama, the lawsuit, likely to succeed?" (July 15, 2014); Mark Rubin, "The Lawsuit" (August 2, 2014), stating "I’ve been involved in hundreds of lawsuits. Never in one as silly, though, as the one have we’ve all been hearing about: House of Representatives v. Obama"; Linda Chavez, "Speaker’s lawsuit against the president is the right course", The Columbus Dispatch (September 29, 2014), stating "A future U.S. House of Representatives v. Obama case may establish a similarly dramatic precedent". The use of a spelled-out "United States" is a matter of form, and will be how any lawsuit would be captioned. bd2412 T 21:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Name of the case (and the article)

The complaint has been filed today, and rather surprisingly captions the case as "United States House of Representatives v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell" (and others, specifically Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew, and the executive departments the named plaintiffs head). I have not seen any analysis by the news outlets of why these plaintiffs were names, rather than Obama himself, although this will boil down to a combination of litigation tactics and public relations. I think it should be uncontroversial at this point, however, to rename the article, United States House of Representatives v. Burwell, and to include that name in the lead sentence. bd2412 T 18:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree the name should be changed; Obama is not named in the suit. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep the article name for now -- we'll have to see how the media refers to it. It's pretty clear that the real defendant is Obama, and the exact names of the defendants is a matter of technical discretion by the attorneys filing the case. Since up to now all news outlets have been referring to the lawsuit as a lawsuit against Obama, that's how the article should be called until things change. How hot is the sun? (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Whether the media refers to this as "a lawsuit against Obama", they have not referred to it as "United States House of Representatives v. Obama", and the style of the filing makes it highly unlikely that they will begin doing so now. bd2412 T 19:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Per WP:ARTICLENAME, "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent". At the moment, the lawsuit is most recognizable as a lawsuit against Obama. If that were to change, we can change the name of the article. How hot is the sun? (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't that require that we title this United States House of Representatives lawsuit against Barack Obama? bd2412 T 16:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
        • If we're naming it specifically based on how it is most recognized, it would be House Republican lawsuit against Barack Obama, as all 9 of the 9 sources (including NYT, LATimes, CBS, CNBC, NPR, WaPo and BBS...) I reviewed about the Nov. 21 action referred to it as "the Republican lawsuit against Obama". "Technically" it's the House (not just the Republicans) vs Burwell, et al, but if we're going with "how the media refers to it", then it's Repubs vs Obama without question. My preference is BD2412's earlier suggestion, as modified in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I would submit that if Obama's name has to be in the article title, despite not being named in the suit, that the title be House Republican lawsuit against the Obama administration. My preference is still to use the actual name of the case, though. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
            • Since there is obviously disagreement on this point, I am going to file a formal move request, which will draw the opinions of a larger slice of the community. bd2412 T 01:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Also agree the name should be changed. It's pretty clear that the executive administration is the real defendant in this case (while Obama is the obvious target of the rest of the extralegal efforts). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits (November)

I've reverted this edit which deleted reference formatting, wikilinks to discussed subjects (i.e.; Kawa), references and inserted cumbersome, unencyclopedic content to the lede sentence, among other oddities -- all without explanation. Here is what the edit summary said: They did ultimately decide against expanding the lawsuit to include immigration, that's why it's not in the lawsuit which does not summarize the actual edits. If there are objections to article content, please raise and resolve them here instead of editwarring. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

---

United States House of Representatives v. Obama → United States House of Representatives v. Burwell – When I created this article, I expected that the plaintiffs (having voted to sue President Obama specifically) would caption their case United States House of Representatives v. Obama; however, when the suit was actually filed, Obama was not personally named as a defendant, and the first named defendant was Secretary of Health Sylvia Mathews Burwell. The case will therefore be reported as United States House of Representatives v. Burwell, et al., or United States House of Representatives v. Burwell (probably more frequently the latter, since legal writers tend to drop "et al" notations). In short, I was wrong, and the title should be changed accordingly. bd2412 T 01:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Per the requester of this move; per the creator of this article; per the Wikipedia Manual of Style on Article Titles for Legal Cases, the proposed name change is a noncontroversial no-brainer. Redirects can be set up for minor variations on the case name as needed, for navigation purposes. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just move it – such cases do not need an RM. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, I proposed this informally above, and was met with an objection, so I prefer to gauge broader consensus to address any potential controversy over the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"met with an objection" - exactly. Just one objection, which if I understood it correctly is that we should leave "Obama" in the article title "Since up to now all news outlets have been referring to the lawsuit as a lawsuit against Obama". Well, as of the 21st, we now know the suit the news outlets referred to never materialized, and likely will not. We do, however, now have an existing lawsuit described by this article, so the problematic title needs to be repaired. I support BD2412's suggested fix, as do George Ho, Dicklyon, and 331dot (in the above section). Besides, the present vague "House v. Obama" misnomer is only going to confuse readers when similar, but different, suits come down the pipeline. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not expressing support for the idea and only proposed an alternative that I would find more acceptable- but I still prefer moving the page to the title proposed here. 331dot (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So, to really clarify, when you said above "My preference is still to use the actual name of the case", as is proposed here, you were not expressing support for such an idea ... but now you are? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies; I didn't realize which comment you were referencing. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I thought I had been the only one thinking this way. Well, we do not have to deal with one-sided inaccuracies in favor of the ignorant. --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support – It's pretty self-explanatory. The current article title is not the name of the case. The target of the proposed move is. I suggest a ten-minute recess to have some cookies and get on with the move. --V2Blast (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• move to House Republicans v. Obama as this is the most recognizable and concise name (per WP:ARTICLENAME). The name should not be italicized, since it's not a real name of a lawsuit. Of course, should this lawsuit move up to the Supreme Court, and become a landmark case, then no question it should be called by its official name United States House of Representatives v. Burwell. For now, however, the defendants names are just legal technicalities, as the lawsuit has more of a political purpose than a legal purpose, and there is no political interest in suing Sylvia Burwell (she's just a pawn in this game). How hot is the sun? (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that at the time the House of Representatives voted on the lawsuit, it wasn't determined who would be the exact named defendants -- supporting the point that unless this lawsuit because a landmark case, its legal name is less important than its political purpose, which is for the House Republicans to sue President Obama. How hot is the sun? (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to add that if we were to call the article House Republicans v. Obama, the lead sentence would be something like
House Republicans v. Obama is a legal lawsuit (filed under the name United States House of Representatives v. Burwell et al) ....
But again, it all depends on how far this lawsuit goes and how much of a legal precedence it will set. As of now, the expectation is that it's all political theater, with zero legal implications, so that's how the article should be titled. How hot is the sun? (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with that proposal for two reasons. First, the name of the lawsuit is not House Republicans v. Obama, nor do either of those appear anywhere in the caption. Second, "House Republicans v. Obama" sounds like a general catch-all title for all disputes between House Republicans and President Obama, which is a much broader category of information than just this lawsuit. bd2412 T 17:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you that the lawsuit is recognizable in the mass media as one where the Republicans are suing Obama over Obamacare. However, that is where our agreement ends on your proposal, for the following reasons:

1. recognizable and concise name (per WP:ARTICLENAME)

You mention 2 of the 5 stipulations of WP:ARTICLENAME, while failing to mention that your proposed name violates others. Your proposed name is the opposite of precise, and is not consistent with the naming conventions established for similar articles.

2. should this lawsuit move up to the Supreme Court, and become a landmark case, then no question it should be called by its official name

No. Legal cases notable enough to have a Wikipedia article should always be named properly, not just ones that achieve landmark status.

3. the defendants names are just legal technicalities, as the lawsuit has more of a political purpose than a legal purpose

This sounds to me like original research, as I do not see that conveyed by our Wikipedia article. The wording in the lawsuit certainly doesn't say that, nor does the champion of the lawsuit (Boehner). I see where some critics of the action are calling it a "political stunt", but I don't see anything in our lede paragraph saying what you just said. When our article states in Wikipedia's voice that the suit's purpose is political instead of legal, then you can argue for your proposed name.

4. it wasn't determined who would be the exact named defendants

Actually, they voted on very narrow constraints, naming just the executive branch: "litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch officials"

5. it all depends on how far this lawsuit goes and how much of a legal precedence it will set

No. Our article naming conventions do not depend at all on either of those, unless some vandal has messed with the policy pages. (And I reiterate, you say "it's all political theater, with zero legal implications, so that's how the article should be titled", yet I don't see that conveyed anywhere in the lede -- so the article certainly shouldn't be so misleadingly titled.)

Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

How about House of Representative lawsuit against the Obama Administration? I think it satisfies all 5 criteria of "recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent". I don't think there is any requirement to name lawsuits by the litigants if they are better known by other names. How hot is the sun? (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Once it became an actual legal case, yes, there is a requirement: "Articles on cases should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case." Your new proposed title would be neither precise (rather vague, actually) nor consistent with naming convention. In addition, to quote BD2412 above, your new proposal still: "sounds like a general catch-all title for all disputes between House Republicans and President Obama, which is a much broader category of information than just this lawsuit." More specificity is required, especially in light of recent indications that additional House lawsuits against Obama and the executive branch are likely (I linked one example above). Xenophrenic (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(A) You are mis-representing a guideline as a requirement. This case does not fit the guideline since it is better known by it's non-legal convention as a lawsuit against the president.

(B) You are misquoting BD2412 -- applying comments made to one proposed article name to a differently proposed article name.

(C) If indeed additional lawsuits will be filed, then more specificity will be needed. For now, no additional specificity is needed.

How hot is the sun? (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

re: A - Incorrect. There's been no misrepresentation of the guideline, and of course this case fits that guideline. What you are asserting is that since the proposed lawsuit was commonly described as "against the president", that should trump precision and established naming convention now that an actual lawsuit exists. I don't see anyone agreeing with your stance. re: B - I just double-checked, and I did not misquote BD2412. And to clarify, he was commenting on your old proposal, and I used those words to comment about your new proposal. And I note that you haven't addressed the concern. re: C - Yes, it is. Otherwise it tells the reader nothing about the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And now you are misrepresenting all your misrepresentations. I will no longer discuss this matter with you. How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You stopped discussing the matter, and resorted to personal attacks instead, a couple posts ago -- so disengaging is wise. Perhaps someone else will pick up the ball on resolving these issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Calling the points that you make misrepresentations is nowhere near personal attacks. How hot is the sun? (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether a guideline is a requirement or not, it is a reasonable justification for moving the page, as is the concern that a particular page be titled so as to most accurately reflect the subject that it discusses. bd2412 T 16:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Link to immigration executive order

Note that two references are provided for this link to the immigration executive order -- the NY Times and USA Today. The NY Times does not mention the immigration executive order, the USA Today mentions the immigration executive order only in passing at the very end of the story. No link should be made between the two, other than to quote the LA Times that says that the Republicans contemplated linking the two. How hot is the sun? (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And the reason you removed 'Republican' is ...? As for the executive actions on immigration, did you mean this:

From USA Today: The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Washington, comes a day after Obama announced a round of executive orders on immigration that will allow up to 5 million undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status. Some Republicans have suggested they could sue the president over that action as well, but it will require a separate vote. The House voted to authorize the health care lawsuit in July.

From the LATimes: The lawsuit, filed Friday, is the first legal challenge of its kind by a chamber of Congress and came one day after the president’s announcement that he was using executive authority to institute immigration reform. Republicans have discussed whether to expand their healthcare lawsuit to include the immigration actions.

Why use one part of what the source conveys yet say another part is "in passing"? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no explanation for removing "Republican" (which is fully sourced), I've replaced it. Also, since multiple sources presently in the lede convey (not just "in passing") that the lawsuit was filed immediately after Obama's executive actions, I've returned that information. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This added reference makes a good link between the timing of the the filing of the lawsuit and the executive orders. How hot is the sun? (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Opening

Since Obama is not named as a defendant, shouldn't the opening text refer to his administration and not him personally as having acted illegally("asserting that President Barack Obama has acted illegally")? 331dot (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that the rhetoric used in the media almost always singles out Obama as having acted illegally. I do note, however, that the complaint as filed states "[t]his case arises out of unconstitutional and unlawful actions taken by the Administration of President Barack Obama" (as opposed to specifying the President as an individual). bd2412 T 14:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits (May 2016)

An editor has removed sourced info, with a cryptic edit summary claiming: (Ruling on a motion to dismiss is NOT a ruling on the case). What an odd thing to say. The ruling on the dismissal request in this case was cited to an article titled, "U.S. judge rules Republicans can pursue Obamacare lawsuit", and states in the article, "Collyer did not rule on the merits of the claims, only on the administration's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the issue of standing". I'm fairly certain we're all talking about the same case here. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps the editor meant that a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a ruling on the merits of the case. The determination that Congress can sue the President at all over an alleged misappropriation of funds is novel, but has no bearing on whether the appropriation itself is improper, an issue decided later. bd2412 T 11:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's expected that there will be incremental rulings throughout this case, with those of significance likely to be covered in our article. There are (apparently) more rulings to come, as previous rulings are revisited, appealed, overturned, vacated or upheld. Some rulings may be split among distinct components of the case; some rulings may be replicated (a ruling on another motion to dismiss after a change in circumstance, for example). The point here is that of course each "ruling" is different (which is why they are in separate paragraphs, listed chronologically), but they are all rulings in this case (which is why they are grouped under a 'Rulings' header). Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)