That's got to hurt
Yesterday I posted regarding Erik Holder's attempt to take an interlocutory appeal from a trial court ruling that the Issa Committee's contempt suit could proceed. The trial court today denied his motion, noting
"As the authority cited by defendant indicates, the Court must objectively determine whether the issue for appeal is one on which there is a substantial ground for dispute. See In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., No. 99-197 TFH, 2000 WL 33142129, *2 (D.D.C. Nov. 22, 2000) (“It is the duty of the district judge faced with a motion for certification to analyze the strength of the arguments in opposition to the challenged rulings when deciding whether the issue of appeal is truly one on which there is a substantial ground for dispute.”)
The Court is not of the opinion that its denial of the motion to dismiss involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion. As explained in the Memorandum Opinion, the ruling was based upon Supreme Court precedent and Circuit precedent, and it was decided in accordance with an opinion issued by another judge of this court in a substantially similar matter: Comm. on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008). Defendant has not pointed to any precedent that would supply the grounds for a difference of opinion; Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), which found that individual members of Congress did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, does not govern this action."