Where are the judges?

[kentuck]

Where are the decisions protecting our Constitution and our balance of powers?

How many cases have the Democrats appealed to the courts?

Is there a time limit before they can rule?

It appears the Judicial system is just as broken as the other two branches?

Otherwise, why are they sitting on their hands?

[underpants]

1. Sitting on the bench

Waiting to get into the game

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. The judges aren't sitting on their hands. There are processes

that have to be followed and the judges are bound by the rules governing those processes just as much as the lawyers and parties are. If a motion is made to compel someone to do something (anything), the motion has to be placed on the court's calendar, which means it's not going to happen tomorrow; it's going to be weeks, probably at least a month in the future. Opposing parties have to be served with the notice of motion and it's filed with the court. The moving party also files a memorandum in support of the motion. The opposing party has a certain period of time to file an opposing memorandum. The moving party might also be allowed to follow a reply memorandum. Then you wait for the hearing. After the hearing the judge decides the case and files a written memorandum and order. Then the losing party might appeal, which takes months. There can be ways of expediting this process to some extent, but even then it's not fast. You can't just waltz into a courtroom any old time where a judge is waiting for you and expect to have immediate results.

[uponit7771]

3. This is were the judicial system is falling apart, giving a president time to evade impeachment by

... slow walking shit.

Yes, they should prioritize congressional matters like these that are time based.

[kentuck]

4. They have been known to fast-track decisions ...

...when it is of constitutional import.

They don't have to follow a programmed procedure for every case.

The Congress and the Executive can make such a request.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. The parties have to agree to a fast-track schedule.

[kentuck]

8. Which parties ?

Are you saying one party can obstruct and the judges would agree with that party? Can they not make independent decisions?

[Jose Garcia]

7. If the House wants to impeach, it doesn't need permission from the courts

[uponit7771]

9. True, the house needs courts to establish punitive subpoenas to be enforced though. The house needs

... to investigate and establish the Mueller report like they did yesterday to solidify article of impeachment

[Amishman]

6. The ones who can act have been doing so

A judge has a lot of limitations on them.

Someone has to sue or otherwise bring a case. No plaintiff, no action.

They must have jurisdiction.

The plaintiff must have standing, they must be able to prove they are impacted.

They also must reconcile the actions with existing case law.

There have been a lot of good challenges and injuctions.

[Beringia]

10. Elie Mystal is a lawyer who writes about this a lot

I don't read them because it is way over my head and out of my wheelhouse, but I do take note he writes about this.

His last one is "Are We Ever Going To Get That Code of Judicial Ethics? Cause They Seem Relevant"
By Elie Mystal
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to operate under no ethical guidance.


https://abovethelaw.com/author/elie-mystal/