Dark Money Groups Demand Brett Kavanaugh Recuse from CFPB Supreme Court Case

Several progressive groups, including Allied Progress and Demand Justice, two liberal dark money groups, have set a target on Justice Brett Kavanaugh as they aim to have him recuse himself from the case involving the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB).

During his tenure as a federal appeals court judge in Washington, Kavanaugh argued that the bureau’s structure was unconstitutional. According to the groups, Kavanaugh will have difficulty ruling impartially in the case, known as Seila Law v. CFPB, which is set to be argued in the early days of March 2020.

“We call on Justice Kavanaugh to recuse himself from hearing a case on which he has already made up his mind,” Demand Justice, Demand Progress Education Fund, the Revolving Door Project and Allied Progress wrote in a statement.

“The law clearly states that judges should recuse themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Brett Kavanaugh has already ruled on the underlying legal question in this case. He cannot plausibly claim to be open to arguments from both sides,” the groups added.

In a 2016 opinion and a 2018 dissent, Kavanaugh shared his views on the bureau, saying in 2016, “We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured.”

The bureau is challenged by Seila Law, a California-based firm that claims the independence of the agency’s director falls out of line with the Constitution’s separation of powers.

In 2016, Kavanaugh said the “concentration of massive, unchecked power in a single Director marks a dramatic departure from settled historical practice and makes the CFPB unique among independent agencies.”

Two years later, after his opinion, Kavanaugh was inclined to write a dissent reaffirming his belief that the structure of the agency was unconstitutional after the full court overturned his decision. The groups stated:

In PHH, Kavanaugh offered a more than 70-page long dissent which he told the Senate constituted one of the most ‘significant constitutional opinions’ of his judicial career. Kavanaugh’s personal reputational interest in seeing that bitter dissent against a bipartisan majority be vindicated by the Supreme Court is considerable.

Scott Walter, President of the Capital Research Center, joined SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Saturday over the weekend, where he discussed the “laughable” leftist organizations’ case against Kavanaugh.

“Usually the lefty groups are better than this,” Walter told host Matthew Boyle. “This one’s really laughable because apparently CNBC thinks it’s a national news story if four guys around the water cooler decide to issue a letter together.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/23/dark-money-groups-demand-brett-kavanaugh-recuse-from-cfpb-supreme-court-case/

Quick Decision In McGahn Subpoena Case Will Trap Courts In Political Power Contest, DOJ Warns

The Department of Justice (DOJ) warned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that a swift ruling on a House committee’s subpoena to former White House counsel Don McGahn could amount to improper judicial interference with impeachment proceedings.

In a Monday legal filing, DOJ lawyers said the dispute bears on the second impeachment article the House adopted against President Donald Trump, obstruction of Congress. As such, a decision at this stage could “embroil the federal courts in a power contest nearly at the height of its political tension.”

“The now very real possibility of this Court appearing to weigh in on an article of impeachment at a time when political tensions are at their highest levels — before, during, or after a Senate trial regarding the removal of a President — puts in stark relief why this sort of interbranch dispute is not one that has ‘traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process,'” the filing reads.

After the House adopted articles of impeachment, the D.C. Circuit asked Congress and the administration whether further proceedings were necessary. The committee cited the impeachment inquiry to justify its subpoena for McGahn’s testimony.

The Justice Department said the case is still live, the impeachment vote notwithstanding. Congress says McGahn’s testimony will help determine the need for new legislation and vindicate its oversight responsibilities. DOJ conceded those are independent grounds for the subpoena.

With impeachment proceedings concluded in the House, DOJ said the D.C. Circuit doesn’t need to resolve the dispute quickly, as congressional Democrats asked. Both parties have already submitted legal briefs to the court ahead of a Jan. 3 argument date. The House sought an expedited schedule so as not to impede the impeachment inquiry. With an impeachment vote dispensed with, the Justice Department said that argument holds no weight.

Apart from the McGahn dispute, the D.C. Circuit will also hear arguments Jan. 3 over the House’s bid to obtain concealed grand jury information from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/23/doj-mcgahn-subpoena-dc-circuit/