« Barnette at 75 | Main | Farewell »

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Can you say "Speech or Debate"?

I am a Democrat. But this may be the dumbest thing I have seen. Even if a court could enjoin executive branch officials to turn over documents (questionable on political question grounds), the Speech or Debate Clause makes about as clear as anything in the Constitution that a court cannot enjoin legislative officials from taking a fundamental legislative action such as a vote. As one commentator put it, that's just not how any of this works. I also doubt Merkley has standing to sue the executive, but there is no reason to even reach that issue.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 26, 2018 at 04:22 PM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink

Comments

Thhis may be the first time in my life when I have agreed with Susan Hennessey on anything. Broken clock and all that.

Posted by: James | Oct 2, 2018 7:55:55 PM

Just clarification :

First figures , have to do with the administration of Trump of course . The Second , Obama as stated . Third , President Clinton .

Apologizing .....

Posted by: El roam | Sep 26, 2018 7:12:24 PM


Just to describe some from the complaint ( concerning historical precedents in nominations ) :

So assuming or taken as correct and true . Here some comparison . For example :

While 100,000 pages of documents are held on the basis of " presidential privilege " , and , 140,000 pages of documents that were released to the US Senate judiciary Committee but were marked " Committee confidential " ( P. 6 ) ,yet :

President Obama did not assert executive privilege over any document . And :

Less than 1% of the total number of pages of records pertaining to then solicitor General Kagan that were requested were withheld from the public , and only on personal privacy ground.(p. 16 to the complaint ) .

All this , raises reasonable suspicion. Must be legally reviewed by court of course .

Thanks


Posted by: El roam | Sep 26, 2018 7:08:58 PM


Important and interesting , I don't see nothing legally wrong in that complaint or motion . Even if it was so , that :

" the Speech or Debate Clause makes about as clear as anything in the Constitution that a court cannot enjoin legislative officials from taking a fundamental legislative action such as a vote. "

Yet , at the same level , only the court , can enjoin or order whoever , for letting the Senate doing it's job if interrupted , and , in accordance with Article II that clearly dictates that the president :

" shall nominate , and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate , shall appoint ...Judges of the Supreme court "

Now , prima facie , while reading that complaint , it is clear , that there is reasonable suspicions , that some Senate members , and the executive branch , bar other Senators , from fulfilling their constitutional duty . The historical precedents in previous nominations and hearing described there ( have to do with disclosure of records ) and if taken as correct and true , leave no doubt about the reasonableness of the suspicion .

So , that is when the court should intervene. For , there is no point in separation of power , if one branch , is left with no power at all , let alone , constitutional as such. Otherwise , who would intervene then ? the Vatican ?? The Pope ? That's it !!

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Sep 26, 2018 6:39:34 PM

Post a comment