I was thinking world’s largest white lima bean, but Baby Beluga works for me too.
3 Likes
What 45 is doing with the DOJ running interference for Whitaker sounds terrible and unlawful, but we will have a Democratic House in January with committees in place who will subpoena and investigate all the malfeasance that is this administration. If 45 tries to destroy the constitution it won’t be without a fight.
The committee most likely to take action would be Judiciary chaired by Jerry Nadler of NY.
has pledged to start investigations into potential violations of anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution, Mr. Trump’s apparent attempts to exert undue control over the F.B.I. and Justice Department, and accusations of sexual misconduct and perjury against Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Mr. Nadler has said he would tread more carefully around the ongoing investigation of Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia. In the short term, that means protecting the special counsel overseeing the inquiry, Robert S. Mueller III. But when Mr. Mueller’s work is complete, Mr. Nadler would be a key Democrat deciding whether to open an impeachment inquiry.
5 Likes
Being deprived of their Senate vote is the basis for standing I’d have expected. You sound skeptical. Are you?
3 Likes
I don’t know who else would have standing in this suit but senators who were cut out of the advise and consent by this hire.
2 Likes
This exact point is made in the suit (of course) on pg 4.
3 Likes
Your specific concern is the reason I’d expect this challenge to succeed. There are only two possibilities here: either the intent of the Vacancies Act is to nullify the Constitution, in which case the Vacancies Act is unconstitutional and cannot stand, or the use of the Vacancies act to “get around” the advise and consent clause is contrary to the intent of the Vacancies Act and the use of it for this purpose violates the intent of Congress, which means the Vacancies Act cannot be used for that purpose.
5 Likes
One would expect Federalist Society types and other Trump enablers to dismiss the Democrats’ argument — but you know who else was a little skeptical as of a week ago? Senator Blumenthal himself.
Yes, he has now signed on — but doubts remain.
2 Likes
That’s true for the non-temporary appointments, but acting cabinet members have been people previously confirmed by the senate for other positions. It’s ridiculous on it’s face that Whitaker’s 14 year old confirmation as a US Attorney would meet the spirit of the applicable rule, but republicans either use any technicalities they can find or make them up, so the question is how the rule is actually written.
ETA: Again, it depends on how the rule is written, but I see from the filing that Whitaker resigned the post in 2009 for which he had been confirmed by the senate. Seems like a given that any confirmation status would expire upon resignation. I’m guessing precedent will be hard to find, though.
4 Likes
But on what basis would they reject it? I get that they may not like it, but the court would need a stated basis for rejecting it.
2 Likes
States? (Since Senators represent their state)
‘…necessary insignificance and pliancy…’ Poetry, I tell you, poetry.
I don’t think so because it’s not the states that get to advise and consent, just the senate.
When Ryan and company wanted to damage the ACA, one of the things they did was to file a lawsuit alleging that “[t]he actions of the defendants [namely, members of the Obama Administration] … injure the House by, among other things, usurping its Article I legislative authority.”
That’s what gave them standing, they argued.
What did you make of the argument at the time?
Anyway, as you remember, a federal court disagreed with the Obama Administration and did find that the plaintiffs had standing, but see why:
In other words: The whole House, not individual members, were granted standing.
Hence my original question:
Can [these three Senators] establish [standing] without McConnell’s help?
1 Like
because each individual senator votes on appointments, each of them has standing to sue because the appointment interferes with the exercise of their constitutionally mandated perogatives.
3 Likes
That’s a natural argument to make, I agree.
Sure as hell hope we don’t get to the point where this might actually be important, but even if the DOJ successfully argued that he was already confirmed by the senate and his resignation has no effect on that confirmation, there are currently only 14 members of the senate who were senators when Whitaker was confirmed.
The quoted argument appears to be specific to that suit. It’s saying that a prior decision (Raines) is not an adequate precedent for the suit in question (the ACA suit). It’s not saying that in general no individual representative can ever have standing to bring a lawsuit. Do you disagree?
2 Likes
In that quoted paragraph, check out the line that begins “In fact.”
Yes, I read it. My comment is intended to include it. Do you disagree with my reading of this argument (namely that it’s specific to the lawsuit at hand)?
2 Likes
What you can be sure of is that each side in a lawsuit will try to utilize whatever it can find.
You asked:
It’s not saying that in general no individual representative can ever have standing to bring a lawsuit. Do you disagree?
I can’t think of one circumstance in which a sensible judge would make such a statement.
So let’s just say that if I were an individual member of Congress trying to sue the (any) Administration, that (quoted) paragraph wouldn’t be of much help in establishing that I had standing to do so.