Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(26,721 posts)
92. No point in wasting your time researching - There's nothing there
Wed Sep 26, 2018, 10:58 PM
Sep 2018
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.

Good, does anyone know what good this will do? Red Don doesn't seem to care about law. tia uponit7771 Sep 2018 #1
lets just be happy gabeana Sep 2018 #27
+1 uponit7771 Sep 2018 #28
Exactly. KPN Sep 2018 #101
It will get the issue into the evening news. Maybe it will turn out the 1 vote NCjack Sep 2018 #29
+1 uponit7771 Sep 2018 #37
Murkowski DownriverDem Sep 2018 #46
Murkowski pulled back her FBI investigation. watoos Sep 2018 #63
Oh no!! What a mistake she is making! riversedge Sep 2018 #66
And anything that slows Kavanaugh's confirmation is good for us. yardwork Sep 2018 #83
Ummmm........There's this little thing called Separation of Powers. WillowTree Sep 2018 #32
How about DownriverDem Sep 2018 #47
I totally don't understand your reference here. WillowTree Sep 2018 #52
This makes sense. But at least there must be some legal argument to make... Honeycombe8 Sep 2018 #69
Okay DownriverDem Sep 2018 #86
What presidential interference are you referring to? WillowTree Sep 2018 #87
That was my first thought customerserviceguy Sep 2018 #76
No it's all part of the religious right's quest for absolute power. Initech Sep 2018 #36
I have doubts about the legality of this. mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2018 #2
Agreed Sherman A1 Sep 2018 #9
They don't. The Senate decides by its own rules and votes the definition of advise and consent. Hassin Bin Sober Sep 2018 #21
Doesn't have a prayer zipplewrath Sep 2018 #11
You know what also doesn't have a prayer? lapislzi Sep 2018 #71
False dichotomy zipplewrath Sep 2018 #73
With Merkley customerserviceguy Sep 2018 #78
Right. And not just optics elative to him personally, but to the Democratic Party overall as well KPN Sep 2018 #103
Nothingburger grantcart Sep 2018 #30
Bush v. Gore is precedent that a vote can cause irreparable harm justifying an injunction. SunSeeker Sep 2018 #31
Not the same thing. Bush v. Gore had nothing to do with congressional procedure. WillowTree Sep 2018 #34
But it had to do with a Court interfereing with how a state government conducts a vote count. SunSeeker Sep 2018 #38
As has been stated before by me or others....... WillowTree Sep 2018 #40
You need not repeat yourself. I can see you are very invested in that argument. nt SunSeeker Sep 2018 #96
As you are in yours. WillowTree Sep 2018 #102
Bush v Gore was brought under the Equal Protection Clause onenote Sep 2018 #94
Bush v. Gore was an abomination. It held counting votes amounted to "irreparable harm." SunSeeker Sep 2018 #97
No. The court held....... WillowTree Sep 2018 #106
Yes, it held counting votes was "irreparable harm," as that paragraph says. SunSeeker Sep 2018 #107
It's about DownriverDem Sep 2018 #48
Huh? NT mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2018 #51
love him! renate Sep 2018 #3
Too bad DownriverDem Sep 2018 #50
I gave up living in the past before saidsimplesimon Sep 2018 #56
Optically, it works! It may even help delay. Any delay at this point is a good thing. KPN Sep 2018 #104
Now here is a man who PERSISTS Leghorn21 Sep 2018 #4
Respect ananda Sep 2018 #82
So proud he's my senator. Hassler Sep 2018 #5
Whether it works or not, he is trying. efhmc Sep 2018 #6
right, this is a delay tactic that prolly doesn't have chance but anything helps at this point onetexan Sep 2018 #58
Good Move Sen. Merkley njhoneybadger Sep 2018 #7
Remember that he was also the first one Haggis for Breakfast Sep 2018 #91
Any chance that could work? honest.abe Sep 2018 #8
Totally uncharted waters, I think.... But then, so too was letting SCOTUS name GWB* President hlthe2b Sep 2018 #12
I tend to think not - there's a general principle that courts don't interfere The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2018 #14
Not even a litle bit FBaggins Sep 2018 #15
Yeah, thats what I thought but who knows.. honest.abe Sep 2018 #16
It really isn't (the judge's decision) FBaggins Sep 2018 #17
Ok.. yeah that makes sense. honest.abe Sep 2018 #53
The shit is really hitting the fan today! nt The_jackalope Sep 2018 #10
no time to clean that fan Larrybanal Sep 2018 #95
K&R Scurrilous Sep 2018 #13
the court has no jurisdiction over congressional hearings and confirmation, its grandstanding beachbum bob Sep 2018 #18
This is for show. No court would try to interfere in the functioning of another branch of gov't. Calista241 Sep 2018 #19
All right, this is called fighting back gratuitous Sep 2018 #20
Separation of powers. rsdsharp Sep 2018 #22
I'll be terrified if they don't Recursion Sep 2018 #25
Recommended. H2O Man Sep 2018 #23
This is a terrible idea Recursion Sep 2018 #24
I get why he did it, but even he knows it won't go anywhere onenote Sep 2018 #26
message to VOTERS Hermit-The-Prog Sep 2018 #33
That injunction is unlikely to be granted, since the Senate MineralMan Sep 2018 #35
And courts interpret the Constitution. SunSeeker Sep 2018 #39
Yes, they're supposed to. MineralMan Sep 2018 #42
Tell that to the Bush v. Gore Court. SunSeeker Sep 2018 #45
You really want the Bush v. Gore decision to have application here but it just doesn't. WillowTree Sep 2018 #59
No, what I really want is for Bush v. Gore to be overturned. SunSeeker Sep 2018 #80
1 - The courts have no jurisdiction in this....None. 2 - Bush v. Gore won't be overturned...ever. WillowTree Sep 2018 #81
Feel free to wish yourself. nt SunSeeker Sep 2018 #84
Bush v. Gore wasn't a separation of powers issue FBaggins Sep 2018 #65
Bush v. Gore absolutely was a separation of powers issue. SunSeeker Sep 2018 #79
Hint: The "powers" in "separation of powers"... FBaggins Sep 2018 #90
Hint: Bush v. Gore was not about state vs.federal judiciary. SunSeeker Sep 2018 #99
Bush v. Gore was a case involving the equal protection clause onenote Sep 2018 #93
Do you have a link to the actual filing? nt SunSeeker Sep 2018 #98
here onenote Sep 2018 #100
Good for Jeff Merkley! Love my Senator -- so lucky to have him. KPN Sep 2018 #41
Granting that this is grandstanding quakerboy Sep 2018 #43
Fighting fire with fire. Never hope for a conservative to do the right thing ffr Sep 2018 #44
Not going to happen. Courts are not going to get involved. bitterross Sep 2018 #49
K&R red dog 1 Sep 2018 #54
Merkley pamdb Sep 2018 #55
Attack from every direction. WeekiWater Sep 2018 #57
it won't stop anything, but might slow things down a tad, help run out the clock 0rganism Sep 2018 #60
A vacancy can be filled at any time. tritsofme Sep 2018 #62
Might be good PR? But the legal logic is embarrassingly stupid tritsofme Sep 2018 #61
I'll go on record as saying this might have legs. The action will have been pleaded in a way that WheelWalker Sep 2018 #64
What way CAN they plead it to give the court jurisdiction??? FBaggins Sep 2018 #67
I take your questions to be rhetorical... To give you a serious answer I would have to WheelWalker Sep 2018 #70
No point in wasting your time researching - There's nothing there FBaggins Sep 2018 #92
I don't know if there's a legal way to stop it, but GREAT to see the Democrats fighting for justice! Honeycombe8 Sep 2018 #68
He deserves a medal! Applause at least. lovemydogs Sep 2018 #72
"The @SenJeffMerkley complaint is hot nonsense. ... This is poseur stuff." mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2018 #74
Seems like repubs always want to "ram things." volstork Sep 2018 #75
D.O.A AncientGeezer Sep 2018 #77
Democrats are fighting mad!! This is how you combat the GOP power grab bucolic_frolic Sep 2018 #85
What if Congress passed a bill, and the President signed it dumbcat Sep 2018 #88
Why and to whom does it make us look stupid? KPN Sep 2018 #105
You just illustrated it. n/t dumbcat Sep 2018 #110
Nice. n/t KPN Sep 2018 #111
I'm not saying this was a "stunt", but I think the point was made regardless of legal validity hlthe2b Sep 2018 #89
That's exactly what it was, and purposely so. KPN Sep 2018 #109
Going nowhere Azathoth Sep 2018 #108
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»***Breaking*** SenJeffMer...»Reply #92