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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: ***Breaking*** SenJeffMerkley just filed a federal injunction to stop the Kavanaugh Vote. [View all]FBaggins
(26,721 posts)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.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
111 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
***Breaking*** SenJeffMerkley just filed a federal injunction to stop the Kavanaugh Vote. [View all]
hlthe2b
Sep 2018
OP
Good, does anyone know what good this will do? Red Don doesn't seem to care about law. tia
uponit7771
Sep 2018
#1
This makes sense. But at least there must be some legal argument to make...
Honeycombe8
Sep 2018
#69
They don't. The Senate decides by its own rules and votes the definition of advise and consent.
Hassin Bin Sober
Sep 2018
#21
Right. And not just optics elative to him personally, but to the Democratic Party overall as well
KPN
Sep 2018
#103
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
You need not repeat yourself. I can see you are very invested in that argument. nt
SunSeeker
Sep 2018
#96
Bush v. Gore was an abomination. It held counting votes amounted to "irreparable harm."
SunSeeker
Sep 2018
#97
Optically, it works! It may even help delay. Any delay at this point is a good thing.
KPN
Sep 2018
#104
right, this is a delay tactic that prolly doesn't have chance but anything helps at this point
onetexan
Sep 2018
#58
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
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
You really want the Bush v. Gore decision to have application here but it just doesn't.
WillowTree
Sep 2018
#59
1 - The courts have no jurisdiction in this....None. 2 - Bush v. Gore won't be overturned...ever.
WillowTree
Sep 2018
#81
it won't stop anything, but might slow things down a tad, help run out the clock
0rganism
Sep 2018
#60
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
I take your questions to be rhetorical... To give you a serious answer I would have to
WheelWalker
Sep 2018
#70
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
"The @SenJeffMerkley complaint is hot nonsense. ... This is poseur stuff."
mahatmakanejeeves
Sep 2018
#74