Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

A little Sanity From The DC Circuit Court Of Appeals

Saturday, November 19, 2016 12:18
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

Remember Merrick Garland? The man obama nominated to replace Antonin Scalia on the US Supreme Court. Well, there has been a lawsuit pending since August 2016 brought by a New Mexico lawyer seeking to force the Senate to act on Garland’s nomination, arguing that the failure to do so,

“created a constitutional crisis that threatens the balance and separation of power among our three branches of government.” TheWashingtonPost

The biggest problem with the plaintiff’s case is that the premise is wrong. The Senate is not required, no matter how often or loudly leftists claim it so, to act on any Presidential nomination. But rather than tackle that issue, courts usually focus on the issue of standing – basically whether or not the person or entity bring suit has actually suffered individual harm.

Here the plaintiff alleged that he was among those who,

“had the effectiveness of their vote for United States senators diminished” because the senators who represent him have been denied their ability to vote on Garland’s nomination.

The problem with that assertion is that the plaintiff is no different than any other American. And such undifferentiated harm, courts generally find, is not an individualized harm such as needed for standing. Rather such generalized harm in the political realm is seen as a political question, and not one suitable for judicial action.

“This alleged diminution of his vote for United States Senators is the type of undifferentiated harm common to all citizens that is appropriate for redress in the political sphere: his claim is not that he has been unable to cast votes for Senators, but that his home-state Senators have been frustrated by the rules and leadership of the United States Senate. This is far from the type of direct, individualized harm that warrants judicial review.” HotAir

The Court’s 3 page decision to dismiss the case for lack of standing can be seen here.

The legal consensus is that this case never had a chance to move forward. But in a time where judicial activism is the order of the day, it’s nice to see that even obama’s leftist packed DC Circuit can get one right.

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.