”) (quoting Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. at 584,119 S.Ct. 1563). Defendants proffer three arguments (styled as jurisdictional grounds) for dismissing Plaintiffs complaint: “(1) plaintiff lacks Article III standing, (2) its claims are barred by legislative immunity, and (3) its complaint presents a non-justiciable political question.” See Mem. of Points and Auths. in Support of Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 2. While these claims may appear jurisdictional, the Supreme Court has not addressed whether the Speech or Debate Clause or the Political Question Doctrine raises threshold jurisdictional questions. In fact, at least with regard to the Political Question Doctrine, there is authority suggesting that this doctrine goes to the merits. Johnsrud v. Carter, 620 F.2d 29, 32-33 (3d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in order to avoid an unnecessary
holding that dismissal pursuant to rule 12b6 is appropriate if the plaintiff is unable to articulate enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face holding that dismissal on res judicata grounds is proper under rule 12b6 unless a disputed issue of material fact exists recognizing that a rule 12b6 motion is an appropriate vehicle on which to seek dismissal of a claim barred by a prescription statute holding that dismissal based on the political question doctrine is properly entertained pursuant to rule 12b6 holding that dismissal pursuant to a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity is with prejudice