July 7

* John Boehner is moving ahead with his lawsuit against President Obama, but what’s missing from it may prove to be the biggest story:

Notably, Boehner did not make explicit mention of immigration law, the arena in which Obama took one of his most well-known executive actions. The administration’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals memorandum directs immigration officials to use prosecutorial discretion when dealing with undocumented immigrants who came to the country as young children.

Sources on and off Capitol Hill have doubts that Boehner would target any immigration action, a move that could alienate Hispanic voters and give political fodder to those who already seek to paint the Republican party as nativist.

Mr. Speaker, I think that ship has already sailed.

* Brian Beutler explains why Boehner’s lawsuit may have inadvertently trapped him into an impossible decision on immigration, and why it could represent one of the final nails in the coffin of GOP outreach to Hispanics.

* Ed Kilgore explains why the lawsuit is unlikely to accomplish its real purpose, i.e., to scratch the GOP base’s impeachment itch. — gs

* Today, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest said that “most” of the children now coming in from Central America are likely to be deported back to where they came from, a sign the administration is once again leaning on tough enforcement rhetoric.

* Republicans are angry that Obama won’t stage a photo-op at the border (seriously). USA Today’s Susan Page rather nonsensically calls this a “Katrina moment” (I don’t remember George W. Bush begging congressional Democrats to help in New Orleans but Dems refusing). So Dave Weigel compiles a list of all of the previous things media figures predicted would be Obama’s “Katrina moment,” but then turned out not to be.

* Francis Wilkinson suggests that the big surprise before the November elections just may end up being ambitious executive action on immigration.

* Emma Roller on “Dems in Disarray 2.0,” the fake media-created catfight between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.

* Ryan Cooper pleads with Republicans to get over this “47 percent” thing, and explains why they just can’t bring themselves to do it.

* Harold Pollack on why a big challenge we face is how, and whether, we will revisit our policies and ideas about end-of-life care. Yes, the “death panels.”

* Steve Benen notes that the GOP keeps saying it needs to change, and then keeps not changing:

Thanks to a combination of structural factors, geographic imbalance, gerrymandered districts, voter-suppression efforts, and the fact that Democrats don’t like to show up for midterm elections, Republicans are likely to do quite well in 2014. The party said it needed to change, then decided not to. They party said it would try to govern, then changed its mind. The party said it had to be responsible with power, then shut down the government for no discernible reason. But the party’s failures will probably be rewarded by voters anyway in the fall.

The short-term success, however, will mask a more long-term problem, for which the party has no clear solution. Just as important, Republicans seem intent on denying the problem’s existence and rejecting any talk of change.

Something tells me we’re going to be having this discussion for quite a while.

* Jonathan Bernstein with a nice post explaining why neither conservatives nor liberals should try to claim ownership of the Constitution.

* And over at the American Prospect, I detailed why the Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College decisions may not actually cost anyone their contraception coverage, and argued that if the “reformicons” are going to save the Republican party, they’re going to have to solve a thorny political problem.