Skip to main content

View Diary: Turns out that lawsuits have rules (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well then, if not Congress (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raynmakr

    how about the members as individual co-defendants?  It's splitting hairs, I guess, and the basis for any damages would be acts the defendants engaged in while sitting members of the House (and/or Senate), so maybe it's a distinciton without a difference and it gets tossed on the same rules.  But the up side would be that it would allow the suit to be tailored to smack down the worst offenders, and the court could find against them individually.

    On the other hand, what they'd probably do is move to sever the trials just to gum the works up so much that nothing ever got resolved.  'Cos that's how they roll.  It's their specialty.

    I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

    by mojo11 on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 01:56:23 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm pretty sure (7+ / 0-)

      That it's constitutionally impossible to sue a member of Congress either for remarks on the floor (or in committee) or for votes. And I don't think there's any explicit bribery or influence peddling going on, it's more a case of "Will act stupid for votes".

      •  See Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eztempo, raynmakr
        US Constitution
        Article I, Section VI:

        The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

        It doesn't say for voting, but it does note Speech or Debate in either House and it says no one anywhere else can question them about that speech or debate anywhere else.

        I am interpreting the entire clause as to mean that the latter refers to any law enforcement or court asking questions of them about their speech or debate, not just a citizen at large.


        "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

        by Angie in WA State on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 04:19:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Think you will find (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ER Doc, Angie in WA State, eztempo

          that the section starting "and for any speech" is discrete and is a right established in England in the late 17th century after the Glorious Revolution.

          The English Bill of Rights passed in 1688 provides:

          That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.

          "Come to Sochi, visit the gay clubs and play with the bears" - NOT a Russian advertising slogan.

          by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 05:25:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site