HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » ***Breaking*** SenJeffMer...

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:21 PM

***Breaking*** SenJeffMerkley just filed a federal injunction to stop the Kavanaugh Vote.





Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Wednesday will announce that he's seeking an injunction in federal court designed to stop a final vote on Brett Kavanaugh, asserting an obstruction of his constitutional duty to advise and consent on nominees.

Merkley's still-pending filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia comes as Senate Republicans vow to push ahead with a vote on President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee in the coming days — and hours before a landmark hearing slated with Christine Blasey Ford, who has alleged a decades-old sexual assault by Kavanaugh.

Merkley's bid for an injunction hinges on the Senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on nominees and charges that he's been prevented from fulfilling that due to the withholding of records on Kavanaugh's past service in the George W. Bush administration.


More at the link on politico.com

111 replies, 11228 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 111 replies Author Time Post
Reply ***Breaking*** SenJeffMerkley just filed a federal injunction to stop the Kavanaugh Vote. (Original post)
hlthe2b Sep 26 OP
uponit7771 Sep 26 #1
gabeana Sep 26 #27
uponit7771 Sep 26 #28
KPN Sep 27 #101
NCjack Sep 26 #29
uponit7771 Sep 26 #37
DownriverDem Sep 26 #46
watoos Sep 26 #63
riversedge Sep 26 #66
yardwork Sep 26 #83
WillowTree Sep 26 #32
DownriverDem Sep 26 #47
WillowTree Sep 26 #52
Honeycombe8 Sep 26 #69
DownriverDem Sep 26 #86
WillowTree Sep 26 #87
customerserviceguy Sep 26 #76
Initech Sep 26 #36
mahatmakanejeeves Sep 26 #2
Sherman A1 Sep 26 #9
Hassin Bin Sober Sep 26 #21
zipplewrath Sep 26 #11
lapislzi Sep 26 #71
zipplewrath Sep 26 #73
customerserviceguy Sep 26 #78
KPN Sep 27 #103
grantcart Sep 26 #30
SunSeeker Sep 26 #31
WillowTree Sep 26 #34
SunSeeker Sep 26 #38
WillowTree Sep 26 #40
SunSeeker Sep 27 #96
WillowTree Sep 27 #102
onenote Sep 26 #94
SunSeeker Sep 27 #97
WillowTree Sep 27 #106
SunSeeker Sep 27 #107
DownriverDem Sep 26 #48
mahatmakanejeeves Sep 26 #51
renate Sep 26 #3
DownriverDem Sep 26 #50
saidsimplesimon Sep 26 #56
KPN Sep 27 #104
Leghorn21 Sep 26 #4
ananda Sep 26 #82
Hassler Sep 26 #5
efhmc Sep 26 #6
onetexan Sep 26 #58
njhoneybadger Sep 26 #7
Haggis for Breakfast Sep 26 #91
honest.abe Sep 26 #8
hlthe2b Sep 26 #12
The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 26 #14
FBaggins Sep 26 #15
honest.abe Sep 26 #16
FBaggins Sep 26 #17
honest.abe Sep 26 #53
The_jackalope Sep 26 #10
Larrybanal Sep 27 #95
Scurrilous Sep 26 #13
beachbum bob Sep 26 #18
Calista241 Sep 26 #19
gratuitous Sep 26 #20
rsdsharp Sep 26 #22
Recursion Sep 26 #25
H2O Man Sep 26 #23
Recursion Sep 26 #24
onenote Sep 26 #26
Hermit-The-Prog Sep 26 #33
MineralMan Sep 26 #35
SunSeeker Sep 26 #39
MineralMan Sep 26 #42
SunSeeker Sep 26 #45
WillowTree Sep 26 #59
SunSeeker Sep 26 #80
WillowTree Sep 26 #81
SunSeeker Sep 26 #84
FBaggins Sep 26 #65
SunSeeker Sep 26 #79
FBaggins Sep 26 #90
SunSeeker Sep 27 #99
onenote Sep 26 #93
SunSeeker Sep 27 #98
onenote Sep 27 #100
KPN Sep 26 #41
quakerboy Sep 26 #43
ffr Sep 26 #44
bitterross Sep 26 #49
red dog 1 Sep 26 #54
pamdb Sep 26 #55
WeekiWater Sep 26 #57
0rganism Sep 26 #60
tritsofme Sep 26 #62
tritsofme Sep 26 #61
WheelWalker Sep 26 #64
FBaggins Sep 26 #67
WheelWalker Sep 26 #70
FBaggins Sep 26 #92
Honeycombe8 Sep 26 #68
lovemydogs Sep 26 #72
mahatmakanejeeves Sep 26 #74
volstork Sep 26 #75
AncientGeezer Sep 26 #77
bucolic_frolic Sep 26 #85
dumbcat Sep 26 #88
KPN Sep 27 #105
dumbcat Sep 27 #110
KPN Sep 28 #111
hlthe2b Sep 26 #89
KPN Sep 27 #109
Azathoth Sep 27 #108

Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:22 PM

1. Good, does anyone know what good this will do? Red Don doesn't seem to care about law. tia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:57 PM

27. lets just be happy

that we have fighters on our side
who are doing what then can to stop the monstrosity that is the GOP and their Judge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gabeana (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:58 PM

28. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gabeana (Reply #27)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 09:38 AM

101. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:00 PM

29. It will get the issue into the evening news. Maybe it will turn out the 1 vote

that will decide an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCjack (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:10 PM

37. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCjack (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:38 PM

46. Murkowski

is calling for a FBI investigation. She could be the vote we need. She ran & won as a write in because a RWNJ won the primary. She wants to know more before she votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DownriverDem (Reply #46)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 03:28 PM

63. Murkowski pulled back her FBI investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #63)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 03:47 PM

66. Oh no!! What a mistake she is making!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCjack (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 06:12 PM

83. And anything that slows Kavanaugh's confirmation is good for us.

Time is on our side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:05 PM

32. Ummmm........There's this little thing called Separation of Powers.

The courts don't have jurisdiction over how congressional proceedings are conducted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #32)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:40 PM

47. How about

due to presidential interference? trump has blown the separation of powers out of the water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DownriverDem (Reply #47)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:44 PM

52. I totally don't understand your reference here.

But regardless, constitutionally, the courts do not have any jurisdiction over congressional procedure. None. Really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 04:09 PM

69. This makes sense. But at least there must be some legal argument to make...

the filing must state some legal argument. At least we're trying! Everything should be tried. Don't want any "Maybe we should have...."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 07:10 PM

86. Okay

Okay. What about presidential interference? Is there anything about one of the 3 branches interfering with one of the other branches? Is there some kind of process? We sure have to suck a lot up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DownriverDem (Reply #86)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 08:36 PM

87. What presidential interference are you referring to?

I don't mean that as a challenge, I just want to understand where you're coming from. I still don't think there's any constitutional mechanism for the courts to presume what procedures to follow for one or the other or both houses of Congress, but I'm willing to listen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #32)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 05:14 PM

76. That was my first thought

Other than a hand-picked Federal District judge here and there, I can't see where this goes. If it winds up in the DC Court of Appeals, even if Kavanaugh recuses himself (I doubt that he will, even if it's just being able to consult with the other judges on that court) you're still asking a bunch of people who have worked with Kavanaugh (and will still be doing so if he doesn't get confirmed) to go against a colleague.

And look for Trump to make holy hell with it in the weeks until the midterms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:09 PM

36. No it's all part of the religious right's quest for absolute power.

We must stop them at all costs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:23 PM

2. I have doubts about the legality of this.

An injunction against the Senate?

I will reserve my judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:27 PM

9. Agreed

I don’t believe that the courts have jurisdiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:53 PM

21. They don't. The Senate decides by its own rules and votes the definition of advise and consent.

It could be a hearing or it could be smoke signals. Whatever Leadership/majority decides

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:28 PM

11. Doesn't have a prayer

Besides that the court has a history of not interfering in congressional internal business, the constitution clearly gives each body the ability to write their own rules of procedure. The only place to "file" this objection would be with the Senate Rules Committee. Guess who controls that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 04:12 PM

71. You know what also doesn't have a prayer?

Doing nothing.

Which would you rather see a Democratic Senator doing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #71)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 04:33 PM

73. False dichotomy

There are alot of things I'd rather see him do. Most of them having to do with working with staff to be prepared to participate in various forms of investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #73)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 05:17 PM

78. With Merkley

this is about optics.

Surely, the Kavanaugh confirmation process can be called the first Democratic Primary of the 2020 election campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #78)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 09:56 AM

103. Right. And not just optics elative to him personally, but to the Democratic Party overall as well

as the underhandedness of the GOP. This is about growing support for the Democratic Party and eroding the GOPs.

Did we see Republicans poo-pawing the 80+ attempts by the House to overturn the ACA? Of course not, but we Dems ... another story. Sometimes I gotta wonder about the "big tent" cahracterization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:02 PM

30. Nothingburger

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:02 PM

31. Bush v. Gore is precedent that a vote can cause irreparable harm justifying an injunction.

This case is at least as legit as Bush v. Gore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #31)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:07 PM

34. Not the same thing. Bush v. Gore had nothing to do with congressional procedure.

This is a whole different situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #34)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:12 PM

38. But it had to do with a Court interfereing with how a state government conducts a vote count.

Seems pretty similar to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:16 PM

40. As has been stated before by me or others.......

This is a matter of constitutional Separation of Powers. The courts don't get to tell Congress how to run their proceedings. They simply have no jurisdiction to do this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #40)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 02:07 AM

96. You need not repeat yourself. I can see you are very invested in that argument. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #96)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 09:48 AM

102. As you are in yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 11:34 PM

94. Bush v Gore was brought under the Equal Protection Clause

This suit is brought under the Advise and Consent clause. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the former. It doesn't have any jurisdiction over the latter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #94)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 02:16 AM

97. Bush v. Gore was an abomination. It held counting votes amounted to "irreparable harm."

If SCOTUS let that kind of bullshit fly, there is no reason why a federal court would not interpret the advise and consent clause of the Constitution, as this suit asks it to do.


You've stated your position. We'll see what the district court says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #97)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 10:32 AM

106. No. The court held.......

.......using different standards for counting votes in different counties within the state violated the Equal Protection clause because votes that would be counted as valid in the recount in some counties would not in other counties which, in turn, would be a source of "irreparable harm" to those people whose votes did not count only because they lived and voted in the "wrong" county.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #106)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 11:10 AM

107. Yes, it held counting votes was "irreparable harm," as that paragraph says.

Instead of just ordering that any vote be counted if found valid under the rules of any county, it ordered no votes be counted by enjoining the vote count in all counties. That is cray.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:40 PM

48. It's about

presidential interference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DownriverDem (Reply #48)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:43 PM

51. Huh? NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:25 PM

3. love him!

Whether it works or not... he's trying. I love him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renate (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:42 PM

50. Too bad

we didn't give the Dems the power they need to stop the repubs and trump. In November we have a chance to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DownriverDem (Reply #50)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:52 PM

56. I gave up living in the past before

I was old enough to appreciate my good fortune. Your closing sentence is worthy of note, "we have a chance to do just that". It is not easy to turn the Titanic into safe waters, but worth the effort. imo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renate (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 09:59 AM

104. Optically, it works! It may even help delay. Any delay at this point is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:25 PM

4. Now here is a man who PERSISTS

Thank you Senator Merkley



RESPECT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leghorn21 (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 06:08 PM

82. Respect

..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:26 PM

5. So proud he's my senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:26 PM

6. Whether it works or not, he is trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to efhmc (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:57 PM

58. right, this is a delay tactic that prolly doesn't have chance but anything helps at this point

good try Sen MERKLEY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:26 PM

7. Good Move Sen. Merkley

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to njhoneybadger (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 10:18 PM

91. Remember that he was also the first one

to bring national attention to the detention centers where the trump administration is incarcerating children in cages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:26 PM

8. Any chance that could work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to honest.abe (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:28 PM

12. Totally uncharted waters, I think.... But then, so too was letting SCOTUS name GWB* President

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to honest.abe (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:31 PM

14. I tend to think not - there's a general principle that courts don't interfere

with legislative functions. But this is a very unusual situation, so who knows? We're in uncharted territory once again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to honest.abe (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:38 PM

15. Not even a litle bit

Might he find a friendly judge willing to make himself look like a fool? Maybe... if the judge has a skeleton in his closet and Merkley is willing to blackmail him...

... but no judge that passed Con Law would do anything but laugh at it.

The courses don't have the power to tell the Senate not to vote on something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:40 PM

16. Yeah, thats what I thought but who knows..

Its the judge's decision.. right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to honest.abe (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:47 PM

17. It really isn't (the judge's decision)

Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2018, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Might there be a judge somewhere who was willing to take the case and grant an injunction? I suppose it's possible, but he would be slapped down by any appellate court as fast as the paperwork could be filed and would deserve to be impeached/removed - because he doesn't have that power and should know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:45 PM

53. Ok.. yeah that makes sense.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:27 PM

10. The shit is really hitting the fan today! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_jackalope (Reply #10)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 12:31 AM

95. no time to clean that fan

because shit seems to be coming like a hurricane

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:31 PM

13. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:48 PM

18. the court has no jurisdiction over congressional hearings and confirmation, its grandstanding

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:48 PM

19. This is for show. No court would try to interfere in the functioning of another branch of gov't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:52 PM

20. All right, this is called fighting back

Will it be successful? Don't know. Courts have been reluctant to get involved in what they deem to be internal workings of the legislative branch. However, by tying this request for an injunction to a constitutional duty (not a constitutional option) by the Senate, Merkley's filing may have a leg to stand on.

But this is called fighting back with everything we've got on a playing field heavily tilted against us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:54 PM

22. Separation of powers.

The Court may actually dismiss this sua sponte, without waiting for a defense motion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rsdsharp (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:55 PM

25. I'll be terrified if they don't

I think this is a terrible idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:54 PM

23. Recommended.

I've been wondering when this would happen! I like the timing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:55 PM

24. This is a terrible idea

The worst possible outcome is the court taking this seriously

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 01:56 PM

26. I get why he did it, but even he knows it won't go anywhere

This falls squarely within the realm of cases the courts generally won't touch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:07 PM

33. message to VOTERS

Thank you Sen. Merkley!

This should make the press get the word out to voters -and- get some voters talking around the coffee pot to inspire some others to become voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:08 PM

35. That injunction is unlikely to be granted, since the Senate

controls its own rules, based on Constitutional language. I don't see any judge issuing an injunction over this, due to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:14 PM

39. And courts interpret the Constitution.

This case is as legit as Bush v. Gore. It was Bush v. Gore that started this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:18 PM

42. Yes, they're supposed to.

However, if you read the language regarding the Senate in the Constitution, you'll find that it sets its own rules, which is in that language.

The Constitution is a relatively simple document. The judiciary department is also described in it, along with its duties.

There are three branches of federal government, all supposedly equal in power. However, each works differently, as described in the Constitution. A federal judge is not about to try to change the language and meaning of that language in the description of a different branch of government.

You are incorrect in your evaluation. An injunction in this particular situation is very unlikely, and would probably be overturned by the next level of the court very quickly.

Separation of powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:29 PM

45. Tell that to the Bush v. Gore Court.

They had no problem with Separation of Powers. They certainly should have, but they didn't.


Just as the Court can interpret the Constitution, they can interpret the rules set forth in the Constitution for the Senate and decide if the Senate is following them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:58 PM

59. You really want the Bush v. Gore decision to have application here but it just doesn't.

What "rules" do you think are "set forth in the Constitution for the Senate"? Answer: There are none. The fact is that the Constitution doesn't set the procedural rules for Congress. It is left up to the House and Senate to set their own rules and the Constitution gives the courts no jurisdiction over that. I don't think you understand what Separation of Powers actually is and refers to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #59)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 05:32 PM

80. No, what I really want is for Bush v. Gore to be overturned.

Have you read the filing and determined what the violation is that is being alleged?

Merkley's bid for an injunction hinges on the Senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on nominees and charges that he's been prevented from fulfilling that due to the withholding of records on Kavanaugh's past service in the George W. Bush administration.

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/09/26/merkley-injunction-stop-kavanaugh-vote-843080?__twitter_impression=true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #80)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 06:05 PM

81. 1 - The courts have no jurisdiction in this....None. 2 - Bush v. Gore won't be overturned...ever.

But feel free to wish. That can be fun, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #81)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 06:13 PM

84. Feel free to wish yourself. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 03:41 PM

65. Bush v. Gore wasn't a separation of powers issue

It was similar in the sense that federal courts are hesitant to overrule state courts in matters of interpreting state law/constitution... but there's no question that they have the power to do it when a federal constitutional issue is involved. In this case, the equal protection clause and how it applied to the lack of a single standard for how ballots should be counted statewide.

It's important to remember that while the decision to stop the recount efforts was 5-4... the determination that the state supreme court had erred and violated the equal protection clause was 7-2. The difference of opinion was over whether there was enough time to implement a single standard statewide... NOT whether the state court needed to be overturned.

Just as the Court can interpret the Constitution, they can interpret the rules set forth in the Constitution for the Senate

Nope... because the rules set forth in the Constitution for the Senate in this case simply says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings". Absent some other language (e.g., they can't change the standard to 3/4 supermajority), there is no way to read the above to mean "courts can change senate rules"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #65)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 05:30 PM

79. Bush v. Gore absolutely was a separation of powers issue.

Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2018, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)

SCOTUS interfered with how a state government vote count.

If the Senate did not properly follow its own rules, and/or violated other parts of the Constitution, then SCOTUS may have jurisdiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #79)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 09:58 PM

90. Hint: The "powers" in "separation of powers"...

... refers to the executive/legislative/judicial branch (at both the federal and state levels). There is no separation of powers doctrine between the federal judiciary and the state judiciaries.

The doctrine relating to that relationship is called federal preemption and/or the supremacy clause of the constitution.

SCOTUS can and will "interfere" with how states count votes if there's a federal issue involved (e.g., equal protection, Voting Rights Act, etc.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #90)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 02:35 AM

99. Hint: Bush v. Gore was not about state vs.federal judiciary.

It was a craven political move by the Supreme Court to stop a vote count (a state executive function) by proclaiming that counting votes amounted to "irreparable harm" warranting an injunction. That was cray.

Certainly asking a federal court to interpret the advise and consent clause is no more cray.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #79)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 11:30 PM

93. Bush v. Gore was a case involving the equal protection clause

Merkley's case dies in the first few pages when he contends that the advise and consent clause "requires an informed deliberative Senate process to review the qualification of a nominee for the position of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States free of obstruction by the executive branch".

Actually, nothing in the Constitution says that. It says that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."

It doesn't mandate or otherwise attempt to direct how the Senate engages in the advise and consent function. And it would be bizarre to say the least if every time the Senate considers (or fails to consider) a nomination, it would give rise to a potential federal court action. Many vacancies go unfilled, either because the president doesn't nominate anyone or because the Senate doesn't get around to acting on a nomination." This is true of both parties. And no court is going to get involved in second guessing how the senate does its business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #93)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 02:25 AM

98. Do you have a link to the actual filing? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:16 PM

41. Good for Jeff Merkley! Love my Senator -- so lucky to have him.

Merkley/Avenatti 2028!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:23 PM

43. Granting that this is grandstanding

Or, more charitibly, perhaps just trying any possible avenue to delay and allow the truth to come out,

If this somehow made it through to a ruling.. Wouldnt it then go on to the DC Circuit appeals court

Wherein Slimy K is a sitting justice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:27 PM

44. Fighting fire with fire. Never hope for a conservative to do the right thing

always assume they'll put a knife in your back.

This is how we must fight, bringing it in from every angle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:41 PM

49. Not going to happen. Courts are not going to get involved.

No way the court is going to get involved with telling the Senate how to run itself.

Also, we don't want them to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:45 PM

54. K&R

I wish him luck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:50 PM

55. Merkley

I really like him, have for awhile. I could see him nd Kamala Harris. I really like Mazie Hirono but she was born in Japan so that lets her out for Prep or VP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 02:56 PM

57. Attack from every direction.

Force them to use resources fending off the attacks.

Keep it up Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 03:06 PM

60. it won't stop anything, but might slow things down a tad, help run out the clock

if we can make it through early October without a confirmed nominee, maybe we go into the next SCOTUS season with 4-4 or justice Kennedy still on the bench. i'm not sure what the protocol is for replacing a justice mid-season.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #60)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 03:14 PM

62. A vacancy can be filled at any time.

If the 8 justices were deadlocked on any cases they heard before the new member joined, they may rehear those cases later in the term.

This lawsuit won’t run any time out on the clock, it will be immediately dismissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 03:11 PM

61. Might be good PR? But the legal logic is embarrassingly stupid

He will be immediately laughed out of the courtroom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 03:34 PM

64. I'll go on record as saying this might have legs. The action will have been pleaded in a way that

would give the court jurisdiction. I expect Merkley would not file a frivolous action. Courts require actions to be well-founded in law or to rely on a good-faith extension of existing law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WheelWalker (Reply #64)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 03:51 PM

67. What way CAN they plead it to give the court jurisdiction???

Mail the judge a certificate making him an honorary member of the US Senate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #67)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 04:10 PM

70. I take your questions to be rhetorical... To give you a serious answer I would have to

research the question. I bill by the hour. We can look to the original pleading to see how elements of jurisdiction and standing are alleged to be met in this case. I believe the law is what a judge says it is, until another judge disagrees. Reasonable minds can and often do disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WheelWalker (Reply #70)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 10:58 PM

92. No point in wasting your time researching - There's nothing there

We can look to the original pleading to see how elements of jurisdiction and standing are alleged to be met in this case.

There really aren't any. Just that the matter arises under the constitution and thus the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Basically that by denying him documents that he wants, they are damaging his ability to provide advice and consent.

Obviously, that's nonsense in his personal case. He can't claim that he personally needed more information to make up his mind... because he actively opposed Kavanaugh from day one... but that's not the legal argument.

The legal argument is quite clear. The Constitution says that the Senate provides advice and consent. That doesn't devolve into an individual right to gather whatever a certain senator (or group of senators) wants. The Senate has the right... acting as a body. If an individual senator feels that he doesn't have enough information to make an informed decision... he has the privilege of voting "no".

I believe the law is what a judge says it is, until another judge disagrees.

Sorry... but that's just nonsense. Kavanaugh might agree with you, but if he said it out loud it would have been much easier to defeat his nomination.

The fact that courts can't weigh in on Senate rules is pretty settled law. They can hear a case accusing the Senate of not following their own rules... but they can't impose one on their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 04:07 PM

68. I don't know if there's a legal way to stop it, but GREAT to see the Democrats fighting for justice!

Way to go, Sen. Merkley!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 04:12 PM

72. He deserves a medal! Applause at least.

We must let him know we love what he did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 04:40 PM

74. "The @SenJeffMerkley complaint is hot nonsense. ... This is poseur stuff."

As much as I like to support obstructing Congress from doing things, the @SenJeffMerkley complaint is hot nonsense. The method by which the Senate exercises its constitutional advice and consent power is a classic non-justiciable political question. This is poseur stuff.



Is this an absolute principle or a matter of where to draw the line? If hypothetically the Senate refused to do any judicial confirmations for, say, a couple of decades could the courts do nothing to compel them to do their job?



That would be what voting is for.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 04:54 PM

75. Seems like repubs always want to "ram things."

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 05:16 PM

77. D.O.A

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 06:49 PM

85. Democrats are fighting mad!! This is how you combat the GOP power grab

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 08:50 PM

88. What if Congress passed a bill, and the President signed it

directing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade?

That would be the equivalent to what Merkley is trying to get the court to do.

Some here give him an attaboy for at least trying to do SOMETHING. I think it just makes him (and us) look stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dumbcat (Reply #88)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 10:23 AM

105. Why and to whom does it make us look stupid?

Au contraire. It makes us look like we are serious about forcing the Senate to work the way it should. That's not stupid, that's being right.

Merkley has been all about Senate rules for most of his short Senate tenure. He is a pitbull about changing Senate rules to encourage rather than stifle debate as well as eliminate obstructionism. Look at his record.

If folks think Merkley is going to stop pursuing rule changes through any avenue available in order to ensure full and open debate they are fooling themselves. Oh, and many (maybe most) of us appreciate his efforts -- not just some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #105)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 05:35 PM

110. You just illustrated it. n/t

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dumbcat (Reply #110)

Fri Sep 28, 2018, 12:46 AM

111. Nice. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 09:09 PM

89. I'm not saying this was a "stunt", but I think the point was made regardless of legal validity

Merkley isn't an attorney, but surely someone would have advised him of the improbability of such a suit prevailing and injunction being issued. So, that leaves me wondering if this wasn't more to emphasize the point and the total inappropriateness of what the R's were trying to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #89)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 12:50 PM

109. That's exactly what it was, and purposely so.

Merkley’s no dummy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2018, 12:46 PM

108. Going nowhere

Senate business is Senate business. Their rules and procedures and the way they run their business is strictly their own affair. No court is going to stick their nose into it (that *would* be a Constitutional crisis).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread