Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) filed for an injunction in federal court to stop a final vote on Brett Kavanaugh. The filing claims that the Republican majority is obstructing his constitutional duty to give advise and consent on nominees. The filing is entirely and utterly meritless. It will be dismissed and is unlikely to receive a hearing on the claim.
The filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia makes the specious claim that the refusal to receive documents constitutes a constitutional violation. I agreed with the Democrats that the Administration has wrongly withheld too many documents from the background of Brett Kavanaugh. However, the majority of this Committee has voted to go forward and agrees with the degree of disclosure. Merkley is subject to the rule established by his own institution in handling such nominations. For much of our history there were no confirmation hearings and little review of a nominee’s background.
I have spent much of my career arguing for legislative standing for members to bring lawsuits alleging constitutional violations. We won a major victory in the ACA case where I represented the United States House of Representatives. This undermines those efforts and fulfills the narrative of opponents that members would just continually file politically motivated, legally frivolous claims.
Now you understand why the Founders established a restricted-vote republic, eschewing a one man, one vote democracy.
Ben Franklin, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”
Enough incoherence and hysteria.
Repeal the anti-constitutional and unconstitutional 13th, 14th,15th and 19th amendments.
______________________________________________________________________
“…amendments…as will not injure the Constitution.”
Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789
” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”
– James Madison
If there’s ever a case for getting permanently kill off WHITE MEN, this CUCK IS IT.
Discuss.
g̶e̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶
Et tu, Internet? – I prefer to knock them off just for being soy boys and I do not care about their racial makeup.
Alt.Right Menstrual Troupers will fall for any confidence game that puts tampons in their ears while letting their mouths bleed fluidly.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soy_boy
As for Merkle of Oregon. I wonder if his baggage can stand the sniff test. Not all states have passed Medicinal Recreational laws and he’s not safe going home only going to the Congress.
I couldn’t help but be reminded of a particular Monty Python script when thinking of what the Democrats are doing Mr. Kavanaugh now, and how he will return the courtesy to them after he takes his seat on the Supreme Court.
Good one, Darren. +10
That’s perfect.
The Dem talking point all day was “Judge K, why don’t you call the president and ask for an FBI investigation so that you can clear your name?”
Kavanaugh should now publicly ask that the FBI conduct a thorough investigation…into how Dr. Ford’s letter was leaked to the press. He should ask the FBI to investigate who leaked it. Find out just how did it become public? And the FBI should begin by first questioning Sen.Feinstein and then each of her staff.
And while they’re at it, why not ask Sen. Feinstein about that Chinese spy she had on her staff for 20 years? And then ask about her husband’s business deals in China.
Thank god this idiot politician isn’t a lawyer. Just a Masters in Public Affairs with a PhD in stupid. Wonder which lawyer he got to take the Rule 11 sanctions hit for him?
FRCP 11(b):
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Mespo, isn’t that also called the Spinal
Tap rule?🤓
i predict the respondents wont ask for rule 11 and even if they do it won’t be awarded
it’s a novel theory in a political case and courts are loathe to hand down rule 11 in such cases. even crazy ideas. i have seen some doozies get 12b6’d out and the judges were very gracious to the plaintiffs
if for no other reason than in a way they would be hitting back at the other branch by doing this. so separation of powers will prevent them from granting the injunction and it will prevent them from imposing it
Merkley just making a wild swing, that’s all. Difi and Schumer are the big culprits in this circus, foremost
Merkely: “HEY, I’M A DEMOCRAT PROGRESSIVE. WE DON’T HAVE TO WIN ELECTIONS. EVEN WHEN WE LOSE ELECTIONS, WE DEMAND THE COURTS ENFORCE OUR WILL ON THE UNWILLING ELECTORATE, WHO VOTED WRONGLY. OBEY YOUR PROGRESSIVE OVERLORDS, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT’S BEST FOR YOU, BETTER THAN YOU KNOW YOURSELF.”
It’s funny how when the magic Kenyan was POTUS they adored him for saying, “elections have consequences.” When they lose, NOT SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Few things in life supply as much joy as seeing progressive twats who post here have a heart attack over the result of their nominating the worst POTUS candidate in the history of the US. Yes, Trump is POTUS, and yes, he gets to nominate SCOTUS, and yes progressive twats get to stew in their juice while we enjoy watching Trump shape politics for the next generation.
I hope his next nominee when Ginsburg leaves is an even younger and more radical conservative woman.
Joseph Jones – I heard a rumor that Grunhilda the Hun was to be the next pick for the SC. She has both raped and pillaged. So, there, Democrats.
0+0+0+0+0+0+0 still equals 0
These people just can’t get over the fact that Trump won the election.
Kavanaugh has no baggage.
If Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) is any indication, the issue is non-justiciable.
Professor Turley will soon be called a “Nazi” for pointing out more leftist lunacy! They are going to take your liberal card very soon.
The democrats continue to prove that they are the most dangerous political group to our democracy. I think you Dums just put a big hole in the mid terms.
Or the Republicans are showing their true colors again. Kavanaugh, even with this baggage, is already in. The vote is nothing more than a formality. Now that’s dangerous.
More dangerous than the losers of recent elections vetoing the winner’s wishes? It’s really sweet watching election losers like you demanding (to no avail) a non-existent “right” to act as election winners.
You unfortunately believed what your stupid progressive public school teachers taught you, the Orwellian meme, “losing is winning.” Earth to progressive twat: YOUR TEACHERS LIED! Kavanaugh winning is called “reality.” It must really suck being you!
So, your position is the winner of an election gets to do whatever he or she wishes; even when that winner is a disgusting sack of lying sh*^, like Trump? Says a lot about you.
Merkley should be impeached. He knows damn well the suit is frivolous, and is of a piece with his 15 and a half hour filibuster against a confirmation vote for Gorsuch. Some things never change. More politics on display-no “law” here whatsoever. Get on with the job of providing “advice and consent.”
What will they try next?
Fine the plaintiff and fine his attorney for wasting the court’s time. There is a provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for so doing.
Rule 11, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that a federal district court judge can sanction a party for filing a claim which has no basis in existing law, is frivolous, and/or has no evidentiary basis.
you can try out a novel theory of law and not get rule 11’d.
Merkely is not violating rule 11, it’s just a novel theory
novel as in wrong. but not frivolous. there isnt a fed judge on bench that would impose that fine for his “novel theory”… they will just 12b6 it away soon enough.
I don’t see a basis for a reasonable argument for the modification, extension or reversal of existing law, so Rule 11 sanctions could be warranted. They are so infrequently awarded, however, that it is often easier just to win the dismissal motion than jump through the procedural hoops associated with Rule 11.
here is why they would never impose rule 11. then they THEMSELVES would be stepping on another branch in the form of that Merkely guy.
just by separation of powers the very same reason they wont give the injunction, they wont award sanctions.
in fact the respondent wont even ask for them i would guess
They will just shoot it down nicely.
It has been my personal experience that men who act in the manner described by Ford cannot go 35 years without repeating such behavior as it is integral to their personality. The absence of any indication of such behavior other than in unsubstantiated instances as are presented tends to make me suspect of any real pattern of behavior here but rather claims coming from persons not wanting a conservative on the supreme court.
Really getting tired of the destructive actions of the left.
Perhaps better said, I am getting angry.
Good. Hope that other conservatives get angry enough to start pushing back – the Pinkos are showing their true colors.
This undermines those efforts and fulfills the narrative of opponents that members would just continually file politically motivated, legally frivolous claims.
Nothing could convince me more that Brett Kavanaugh is the right choice for the Supreme Court than watching the Democrats take the safeties off the torpedoes they are launching to sink his nomination.
Professor Turley, I agree with your assessment of the situation; however, are you comfortable with the nomination given the increasing claims of impropriety, and subsequent deceit by Kavanaugh in covering up his past behavior? This seems like it should be disqualifying — the lying, as much as the sexual misconduct, which I see as more problematic than the GOP, apparently.
“…the increasing claims of impropriety…”
You mean like the lady who was gang raped and kept going back for more?
Or the accuser who went to Cory Gardner by sending an anonymous letter with no identifying information at all?
Yes the claims are really mounting up.
The left’s hypocrisy knows no bounds: Kavanaugh is supposed to take a lie detector test and scream/demand an FBI “investigation,” while the accuser does not have to submit her original letter she gave to Feinstein. Which DNC Progressive scum outed Ford and why do you give the DNC a pass for causing Ford all this grief? Ford attorney apparently lied and said Ford can not fly in airplanes. If Ford is honest and neutral, why is her attorney a DNC hack?
Joseph Jones – and it appears Katz’s firm appeared for Swetlink in a sexual harassment workplace claim.
PCS – If that’s the case, then it is telling that she didn’t go back to them for representation. Or perhaps she approached them, and they wouldn’t take her case because it sounded flakey, so she ended up with “creepy porn lawyer.” As to Dr. Ford, they had her polygraphed as a condition of representing her. The firm has an excellent rep in the D.C. area for employment law. They’re not going to risk their reputation by alleging an explosive claim which then turns out to be false. Most people, when selecting an attorney don’t care about the attorney’s personal political views. I’ve hired attorneys in the past and never gave a thought to the person’s political views. I just wanted someone who would win my case. Personally, I believe Dr. Ford. I do not believe the others.
TIN – it is the way the polygraph is set up and Katz will not give up the video or the graphs, just their claimed result. The question was is the summary you wrote correct? Hell, I could have written it and passed the polygraph.
Given all the givens, I will give her the repressed memory in 2012 with 4 boys and in her late teens. Everything after that is a created memory.
This is a fabrication. She may have used real life events as elements in this fabrication, but colored pencils are physical things even if the drawing is the work of my imagination. Hypothesis:
1. Mark Judge’s memoirs. She’s read them.
2. She’s seen Kavanaugh’s name in the news (and recalled the name from Judge’s memoir).
3. Some sort of mishap ca. 1985 she’s retconned to 1982. It may hae rattled her at the time (or not), but the smart money says she filed it away after a few months.
4. Manipulative games with her husband, in and out of the counselors’ office.
5. Eshoo / Feinstein put her onto Debra Katz, who has a scammy former client filed away, one Julia Swetnick.
good lies weave as much truth into them as possible. the more truth the more plausible, and the harder to expose.
just like a convincing heresy, which is often a sound theology up to a point, it gains its strength not from the false part but the true part
in political cases you BETTER consider the lawyer’s views because they damn sure will affect how hard they work– and potentially how credible they seem to judge and jury who may know them
in regular cases it doesnt really matter, this is not a regular case it’s a political one
Two big smiley faces for both directions. where this winds up.
he did submit to a bunch of FBI investigations as he was elevated to fed judge and appellate. many investigations. this is superfluous. but let the FBI go out again. let’s see if the FBI wants to say that they were really incompetent to miss a real thing in their previous checks. call the bluff