Replies

interesting post in #28 David - thoughts?

Not the kind of case where a private attorney general remedy works.

Further, what no one still seems to get is that to address this issue in the private litigation setting is going to require enormous effort just to get in the door.

And the real relief you are looking for is judicial sanction for discovery that proves your position. Which discovery in turn is likely to be a large and expensive undertaking.

Among other things, you will need a number of lawyers--not just one. Look at your adversary--Bauer has a large international law firm at his disposal with several senior partners directing work by a number of second and third level attorneys. In order to contest him, you will need the same kind of personnel and horsepower.

I will say that the Supreme Court appointments open a new avenue of possible challenge. A Supreme Court Justice must be appointed by a "President". So any litigant before the court would have a position from which to challenge the ability of these two ladies he has apponted to sit on a panel.

When you get to the Supreme Court, your client party wants you to look carefully at where the individual justices come down on his issue. So you are looking for a client on the opposite side.

Certiorari is granted on a vote of four Justices. So maybe you have a client who prevailed on a lower appellate court decision where the two ladies were two of the four votes to hear the case--then you move to strike the writ on the grounds they are not qualified.

Or maybe you have a client who lost below on a case where the ladies are on the side of the prevailing party. You move to exclude them from the panel.

But all of this is going to take real legal support.

In this instatnt case I think the candidate who is not supported could sue for defamation or fraud and his damages are lost endorsement and possibly lost election based on misinformation tp voters. The fact that it is on an opinion page does IMO give the paper more leeway..but they should at least allow for the candidate to make a rebuttal...

I myself am sick of all the lies and false promises by candidates who after election turn 180 degrees-(mcamnesty come to mind? Obama?) we the people need a method and means to call them on their bullcrap without having to wait till the next election when memories sometimes fade...now that would be real campaign reform....

" I will say that the Supreme Court appointments open a new avenue of possible challenge. A Supreme Court Justice must be appointed by a "President". So any litigant before the court would have a position from which to challenge the ability of these two ladies he has apponted to sit on a panel.
When you get to the Supreme Court, your client party wants you to look carefully at where the individual justices come down on his issue. So you are looking for a client on the opposite side.

Wouldn't the all elusive "standing" need to be found in order to get to discovery in order to determine the claim that they (Barry's SCOTUS picks) are not qualified? That brings the issue right back to where we are now. No?

Not the kind of case where a private attorney general remedy works.

Further, what no one still seems to get is that to address this issue in the private litigation setting is going to require enormous effort just to get in the door.

And the real relief you are looking for is judicial sanction for discovery that proves your position. Which discovery in turn is likely to be a large and expensive undertaking.

Among other things, you will need a number of lawyers—not just one. Look at your adversary—Bauer has a large international law firm at his disposal with several senior partners directing work by a number of second and third level attorneys. In order to contest him, you will need the same kind of personnel and horsepower.

I will say that the Supreme Court appointments open a new avenue of possible challenge. A Supreme Court Justice must be appointed by a “President”. So any litigant before the court would have a position from which to challenge the ability of these two ladies he has apponted to sit on a panel.

When you get to the Supreme Court, your client party wants you to look carefully at where the individual justices come down on his issue. So you are looking for a client on the opposite side.

Certiorari is granted on a vote of four Justices. So maybe you have a client who prevailed on a lower appellate court decision where the two ladies were two of the four votes to hear the case—then you move to strike the writ on the grounds they are not qualified.

Or maybe you have a client who lost below on a case where the ladies are on the side of the prevailing party. You move to exclude them from the panel.

But all of this is going to take real legal support.

I think that you are forgetting that presidential appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States must be approved with the advise and consent of the US Senate. There is a Constitutional check and balance on presidential power on appointments. If the president is ineligible, it is the Senate’s job to reject his illegal nominees. Both Sotomayor and Kagan were approved by the Senate.

Since the founding of the republic 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate has rejected twelve, taken no action on five, and postponed votes on three. The President has withdrawn his nomination on eight occasions. Seven others have declined the nomination.

Do you see anybody who might be willing to implement the strategies you suggest?

I have a question regarding 18 USC 1001. The description at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf , beginning on p 15, notes that “several courts have held that the phrase (”within the jurisdiction”) contemplates coverage of false statements made to state, local, or private entites but relating to matters that involve federal funds or regulations.”

At another place it says: Although the offense can only be committed “knowingly and willfully,” the prosecution need not prove that the defendant knew that his conduct involved a “matter within the jurisdiction” of a federal entity nor that he intended to defraud a federal entity. Instead, the phrase “knowingly and willfully” refers to the circumstances under which the defendant made his statement, omitted a fact he was obliged to disclose, or included with his false documentation, i.e., “that the defendant knew that his statement was false when he made it or – which amounts in law to the same thing – consciously disregarded or averted his eyes from the likely falsity.”

When I read this I gathered that since a person may not realize that his conduct involved federal jurisdiction at all, it doesn’t necessarily have to be something the person said directly to a federal entity. That’s why I believe that this could apply to a media source who is documented to have known they were reporting a material falsehood but reported it anyway.

Am I understanding this correctly?