Democratic Senators this is how you can litigate the Appointments Clause

Sen. Charles Schumer

Hart Sen. Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Sen. Schumer,

          Democratic Senators can sabotage and delay the Amy Coney Barrett hearings scheduled on October 12-15,  2021 by filing shrewd and brilliant claims to have trials on several issues including whether the obstruction of Merrick Garland nomination was a violation of Constitutional Rights and duties of President Obama and the other 47 Democratic and Independent elected U.S. Senators who wished to vote on the Garland nomination in a full Senate vote. The case, for which there is ample public evidence, and even testimony- in the form of public interviews- will push the nomination process to the next President, win or lose.

DEMOCRATIC AND INDEPENDENT SENATORS ASK FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST THE ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL BLOCKING OF MERRICK GARLAND NOMINATION BY SEN.MITCHELL MCCONNELL AND SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY AND THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHO DECIDED, WITHOUT A VOTE, TO  NOT HAVE HEARINGS ON JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT OF INFLUENCING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. DURING THAT TIME, THE ENTIRE JUSTICE SYSTEM WAS SLOWED MEASURABLY.

          First we have the court rule the question of: was the nullification of President Obama’s appointments to the US Supreme Court, in effect the McConnell and Grassley alleged illegal veto nullification of a U.S. Supreme Court nominee by a serving president is illegal? If the court determines the nullification of the Garland nomination was illegal, then we ask for the court to rule on a remedy.  The remedies we suggest are either remedies of law or remedies of equity.  Federal courts are both courts of equity and law.  Democrats ask for either of two remedies: 

Remedy 1 is to remove Justice Gorsuch on a finding that he has no tenure during good behavior since his appointment could not possibly be legal under the corrupt unconstitutional circumstances of the appointment and the court allows a special master to replace him from President Obama’s list of potential nominees compiled during by Obama/s staff, if the winner of the next election is a Republican.  This case will not be decided in time before the completion of election results of the next Nov. 2  2020 presidential election and before the new Senate and House of Representatives are sworn in on January 5, 2021 and the new President is sworn in on January 20, 2021. Court decisions on these issues will take until after January 20, 2021  

Remedy 2 is to issue a TRO And Preliminary Injunction and permanent order against the appointment of any nominee by Donald Trump to replace the vacant judgeship caused by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The reasoning is that Trump already committed an illegal act by filling the vacant judgeship with his own nominee, when the judgeship vacancy should have been filled a nominee by President Barack Obama being appointed ,voted on by a majority of  full U.S. Senate. There was time for at least two potential Barack Obama nominees to have full hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee between March 1, 2016 and October 30, 2016 or November 30 2016 and there was plenty of time for the full Senate to vote on at least two nominees, even if the first nominee was rejected.

          The question of what the difference is between the two remedies is does the court prefer to leave Justice Gorsuch in as Justice and allow a special master to appoint a new U.S. Supreme Court Justice from President Obama’s list of potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees or does Potential President Biden get the right to choose a justice for the vacant seat left vacant by Ginsburg.  A Democratic President should either fill the seat now occupied by Justice Neil Gorsuch or the judgeship vacancy left vacant by Justice Ginsburg’s death, whether ex-President Obama or Next President Biden.  Let us have some fair play here according to the Constitution of the United States.  President Donald Trump is only legally entitled to fill the seat left vacant by the resignation retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

          Sabotaging and delaying the nomination hearings and the Senate vote on Amy Coney Barrett is for now the most important job the Democratic Senators can do.  It does not matter if Democratic Senators  win the case in federal court or not as long as Democratic Senators  can delay the Amy Coney Barrett Judiciary Committee hearings and full Senate nomination vote until after January 5  2021 or after January 20  2021  Mitch McConnell is a criminal, read the attached letters with citations to criminal statutes violated by Mitchell McConnell and Charles Grassley.  The nomination of Judge Merrick Garland was obstructed illegally civilly and criminally by McConnell and Grassley.  The remedy was as I explained in the attached letter “LEGAL STEPS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN TO REMOVE JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT” was at that time a writ of mandamus.  When McConnell in March 2016 with the assistance of conspiratorial actions of Sen. Charles Grassley first obstructed judiciary committee hearings and a full Senate quorum vote, the remedy was for the White House counsel, W. Neil Eggleston to file an application for a writ of mandamus with the District Court in the District of Columbia, then appeals would befiled by McConnell to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal and Obama’s attorney Eggleston would ask for appeal to an en banc panel on D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals instead and then the loser would appeal for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. There is substantial U.S. Supreme Court case law that makes clear that such “political law disputes” are justiciable and decidable by the federal courts. Disputes between the branches of federal government are political law disputes, just like when the Congress took President Nixon to court to challenge and end the “line item veto” practice that Nixon was using to delete items Congress had funded. Such disputes do not constitute “political doctrine issues”, which are non-justiciable issues.     Also see United States v. Nixon, application of F.R. Crim. Pro. 17 (c) to an intra branch dispute in the Executive Branch of government.  See Baker v. Carr.

          In the case of McConnell and Grassley obstructing President Obama in March 2016, a lawsuit against McConnell and Grassley to get the federal courts to issue a writ of mandamus against each of them as defendants and the writ of mandamus was the proper legal remedy to order that Judiciary hearings be held and that there be a full Senate vote on Garland nomination.  I can tell you Sen. Schumer that Obama would have won the writs of mandamus ordering McConnell and Grassley to do their duties as ordered in the Constitution. Even of there were no hearings and if there was a full Senate vote on Judge Garland nomination, then Judge Garland would have been nominated by at least a 51-49 full Senate vote. McConnell for years blocked Democratic President Obama [and earlier when Clinton was president blocked nominations by President Clinton] from making appointments to the federal courts.  At least 80 district court and appeals court judge nominations by Obama were blocked by Mitchell McConnell. The Democrats and President Obama should have filed lawsuit in federal court long ago.  The Democrats in the Senate to have allowed crook McConnell to get away with these crimes is terrible.

          If we are going to fight the Republican SS, then you must use the heavy weapons, to fight the Republican enemy. The Republican enemy prides themselves on the kind of fight they wage against the weakness in the Senate. Lets Be Strong

                                      Very Truly Yours

                                      Bret Sablosky

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *