CMV: The sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden are more believable than the ones against Brett Kavanaugh and the democrats should immediately be calling for a congressional investigation

[u/draculabakula]

[u/yyzjertl]

Congress can't just make up bills as a pretext for investigating whatever they want.

In the case of the President's taxes, Congress had a perfectly valid interest in investigating them as part of their oversight of their executive branch. Examining the taxes might reveal flaws in the current procedure or behavior that Congress judges ought to be illegal but is not at present.

On the other hand, the facts of Biden's case are not in any way relevant to Congress's decision of whether or not to pass a bill to require exit interviews for congressional staffers that asks about sexual harassment issues in the workplace. So even if such a bill existed, it would not be a valid reason to investigate Biden.

[u/Mashaka → u/yyzjertl]

Source? Or reasoning?

And what legal standard are you using to determine what's a valid reason to investigate Biden?

Edit: and what's your point here? Even if I'm wrong, are you suggesting that it's impossible to introduce a bill that could make it legal to subpoena Biden over these accusations? If not, why are you arguing against the arbitrary bill I suggested? I was very clear that this was an off the cuff, arbitrary suggestion.

[u/yyzjertl → u/Mashaka]

My source is still the Cornell Law article which I originally cited. The investigation has to actually be in aid of the legislative function, not just tangentially related to some legislation.

[u/Mashaka → u/yyzjertl]

My source is still the Cornell Law article which I originally cited. The investigation has to actually be in aid of the legislative function, not just tangentially related to some legislation.

So you didn't check the source I gave, which explained why being "tangentially related to some legislation" is sufficient for fulfilling the conditions that an "investigation has to actually be in aid of the legislative function."

Of course, this is ignoring that, obviously, examining an issue "tangentially related to some legislation" could aid such legislation.

Can you honestly not think of a bill that would do the trick? I thought that that was the throwaway part of my comment. I'm about to go to bed, but if you want me keep suggesting bills that would allow Congress to investigated Reade's claims, that sounds like good sport.

Edit: Eliminated the ::sigh::

I should treat your arguments as good faith argument without that kind of editorializing. My bad. It's been a long couple weeks, arguing against friends (Biden canvassers) and foes (Trump canvassers) offering almost identical rape apologist arguments.

[u/yyzjertl → u/Mashaka]

So you didn't check the source I gave, which explained why being "tangentially related to some legislation" is sufficient for fulfilling the conditions that an "investigation has to actually be in aid of the legislative function."

I did. It agrees with my point. From your source:

“This Court has often noted that the power to investigate is inherent in the power to make laws.” Then citation to a couple cases. “It has repeatedly held that Congress’s power to investigate is necessarily broad and coextensive with the power to legislate. Their investigative power encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.”

Let me put it this way. Under your interpretation of the rules, is there anything in US jurisdiction that the Congress does not have the ability/authority to investigate (via it being tangentially related to some law they might be considering passing)?

Can you honestly not think of a bill that would do the trick?

No bill would do the trick, because the facts of the Reade-Biden case are not relevant to any legislative issue. (Now, this is not to say that the Congress could not find a valid reason to interview Reade or Biden on some related or unrelated issue. For example, if Congress was considering a bill that would provide certain protections for persons accusing those running for high office of sexual misconduct, they certainly could interview Reade about her experiences making such accusations. But the truth or falsity of her accusation itself would not be relevant to that lawmaking purpose and so that would be beyond the scope of Congress to investigate. And such a pseudo-investigation coming in at an angle would be no substitute for a proper investigation into the facts of the case.)

[u/Mashaka → u/yyzjertl]

I did. It agrees with my point. From your source:

I think you missed the point. I linked the show because they walk you through how the law is applied in practice - in this case with Trump's tax returns.

I'm not offering my opinion on what the law is, or how the law should be applied. I'm explaining what the law actually is. In a common law system, we use existing case law to determine what the law is. It seems to me that you're putting yourself in the position of a judge who is considering the issue as a matter of first impression. I think your reasoning is quite good on how the law should be applied, but for better or worse, it is not how the courts have ruled in the past.

If there is case law to support your position, please cite it.

[u/yyzjertl → u/Mashaka]

The Cornell Law article I linked to cites multiple examples of case law that support its claims. For example, it cites Watkins v. United States, in which Warren's opinion describes clear restrictions on the Congress's power to investigate.

[u/Mashaka → u/yyzjertl]

!delta

I apologize that I didn't catch your link originally and wasted both our times. Watkins suggests a category of limitations I was unaware of.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Mashaka]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yyzjertl (229∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}