Can we the people file something to stop/postpone this supreme court hearing?

[KewlKat]

Can we ask for an injunction or something? I"m not a lawyer, but is there no needle in the hay stack that we can pull out? Lack of discovery, no vetting.....etc.

Anything we can do?

[manor321]

1. Senate Republicans can just have the full Senate vote right now if they wanted

We can't stop them. The elections of 2016 and previous elections for the Senate decided this.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

2. no

Every court in the US would deny and toss it for lack of standing.

[FSogol]

3. Yup, a big thanks to Democrats who sat out the 2010 and 2014 midterms and everyone who couldn't

support HRC. Those people made this day possible.

[MagickMuffin]

4. Mitch McConnel said that THE PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE back in 2016

A sampling of tweets

The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. #Scalia https://www.facebook.com/mitchmcconnell/posts/1021148581257166 …

7:35 PM - Feb 13, 2016

At the @WhiteHouse today, @ChuckGrassley and I will reiterate that the American people will have a voice in filling the #SCOTUS vacancy.

10:34 AM - Mar 1, 2016

.@VP - "once the political season is under way...action on a Supreme Court nom. must be put off until after the election campaign is over.”

3:28 PM - Mar 2, 2016

The next justice could dramatically change the direction of #SCOTUS for decades. The American people deserve a voice in that conversation.

9:04 AM - Mar 15, 2016

Perhaps we need to contact McTurtle and tell him what WE WANT!

[KewlKat]

5. Then if he's confirmed can we demand his recussal on all things Russia?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/russian-firm-indicted-in-special-counsel-probe-cites-kavanaugh-decision-to-argue-that-charges-should-be-dismissed/2018/07/19/0faace34-8aba-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44ca21169f4f

Includes Kavanaugh video

Russian firm indicted in special counsel probe cites Kavanaugh decision to argue that charge should be dismissed

A Russian company accused by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III of being part of an online operation to disrupt the 2016 presidential campaign is leaning in part on a decision by Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh to argue that the charge against it should be thrown out.

The 2011 decision by Kavanaugh, writing for a three-judge panel, concerned the role that foreign nationals may play in U.S. elections. It upheld a federal law that said foreigners temporarily in the country may not donate money to candidates, contribute to political parties and groups, or spend money advocating for or against candidates. But it did not rule out letting foreigners spend money on independent advocacy campaigns.

Kavanaugh “went out of his way to limit the decision,” said Daniel A. Petalas, a Washington lawyer and former interim general counsel for the Federal Election Commission.

A motion filed by the Russian company this week repeatedly cites Kavanaugh’s decision, bringing new attention to his rulings on campaign finance laws and regulations during his tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. "We" can demand until we're blue in the face but can't require it.

There is a code of conduct for federal judges but it doesn't apply to the Supreme Court.

Roberts noted that in the lower courts, judges who decide to recuse can always be replaced by another judge, and that their decision is subject to review by a higher court. Such is not the case with the Supreme Court, since there is no higher court to review their decision, and no other Justices to take their place. Consequently, in the event that a Justice did decide to recuse, the Court would have to sit with less than a full panel.

Roberts also noted that if the other justices were permitted to review an individual Justice’s decision not to recuse, this could have the effect of giving the other justices the power to determine who would be able hear the affected cases. Therefore, Justices make their own determination, sometimes using the Code and other available authorities for guidance, and their final decision is not subject to review.

More here: https://abaforlawstudents.com/2018/02/21/supreme-court-justices-recusal-code-conduct-united-states-judges/

[brooklynite]

7. How about, we read the Constitution?

Article 2: Section 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.

Nothing about people and civil lawsuits.

[KewlKat]

12. I did read that but thought I'd ask anyway.

[Tarc]

8. Elections have consequences. All the Steinbots who bailed on the federal election

now reap what they sow.

[0rganism]

9. we the people had our opportunity to do something in 2016

our failure has lasting consequences.
i guess we the people shouldn't complain about losing our democracy if we the people weren't using it anyway.

[MineralMan]

10. Nope.

The die was cast in November, 2016. There is another election this November. I suggest we work our asses off to take back control of Congress. Are you in?

[Hortensis]

11. Nope. Election days are our chances to decide WHO will

get and use our power. That day we all are hugely powerful, one way or the other.

This hearing makes me want spit at everyone who claims principles but didn't vote to make them reality.

Like the feckless types who don't bother to vote, and those who throw their votes away out of spite and resentment. Their huge power is consolidated with the rest in those elected by others. Trump, Sessions, those despicable Republicans senators trying to put a man none of them would hire to run their business on SCOTUS.

We all reap the wind of people who as citizens are much worse than just worthless.

Kick! Spit!