- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS Roberts now has authority to appoint new Judges to SCOTUS under AG Garland rule.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:44 am
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:44 am
"The DOJ has no authority, either under the Constitution or federal law, to commission a new “officer of the United States” in the form of a Special Counsel with powers equivalent to a U.S. Attorney. To do so would be akin to the federal judiciary (all federal judges are “officers of the United States”) creating “special judges” with equivalent powers to decide legal matters, preside over jury trials, oversee grand juries, etc."
Merrick Garland says, "Hogwash."
Jack Tumbling After ...
Merrick Garland says, "Hogwash."
Jack Tumbling After ...
12
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:49 am to Timeoday
This makes logical sense.
If Garland can appoint a DOJ "officer" without constitutional provisions why can't Roberts do the same?
If Garland can appoint a DOJ "officer" without constitutional provisions why can't Roberts do the same?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:49 am to Timeoday
quote:
To do so would be akin to the federal judiciary (all federal judges are “officers of the United States”) creating “special judges” with equivalent powers to decide legal matters, preside over jury trials, oversee grand juries, etc."
No it's not
The Supreme Court is not an Executive Agency, for one. It's a body specifically described in the Constitution.
Bad logic is bad.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:51 am to GumboPot
quote:
If Garland can appoint a DOJ "officer" without constitutional provisions why can't Roberts do the same?
The nature of the 2 bodies.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:52 am to Timeoday
SFP has a poster of these two above his bed
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:53 am to Timeoday
Of course this stupidity was written by Julie Kelly
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The nature of the 2 bodies.
Are they not equal?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:54 am to GumboPot
quote:
Are they not equal?
An Executive Agency is not, in fact, equal to the USSC
It's subordinate to both Congress and the President, which are equal to the USSC
This post was edited on 6/19/24 at 7:54 am
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:55 am to SlowFlowPro
You calling Julie Kelly stupid
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:55 am to SlowFlowPro
Thats the point he is making, NEITHER is legal nor logical. Thanks for agreeing, Jack Smith should never have been "anointed" without Congress approval, nor was he a federal employee at the time, he has no standing to argue anything in the courts.
This post was edited on 6/19/24 at 7:57 am
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:57 am to Timeoday
Canon should throw it out and put the burden on Garland to justify his appointment under Constitutional authority. And Garland cannot. Both Garland and Smith should be prosecuted for Election Tampering, or worse. In my uneducated opinion.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:57 am to Padme
quote:
You calling Julie Kelly stupid
I didn't.
I call her dishonest.
Due to that, her output is stupid
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:57 am to Timeoday
Nonsense. No basis for it…
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
Regardless of the argument here the Jack Smith appointment is illegal.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:58 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
Thats the point he is making, NEITHER is legal nor logical.
Executive agencies appoint subordinates all the time.
The USSC cannot appoint subordinates.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Are they not equal?
An Executive Agency is not, in fact, equal to the USSC
It's subordinate to both Congress and the President, which are equal to the USSC
So...a subordinate can exercise a power the head of that branch of government cannot.
Yeah, you're right...dumb logic.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:59 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
Canon should throw it out and put the burden on Garland to justify his appointment under Constitutional authority.
He can, via USSC case law, which is why this argument has failed every single time it has been brought up.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Bad logic is bad.
Sometimes it is needed to make a point. It's okay, mon. We will get through this and together, we will be better for it.
quote:
So...a subordinate can exercise a power the head of that branch of government cannot.
This post was edited on 6/19/24 at 8:03 am
Posted on 6/19/24 at 7:59 am to GumboPot
quote:
Regardless of the argument here the Jack Smith appointment is illegal.
Not according to the current USSC jurisprudence and any case where this argument has been made.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:02 am to VOR
quote:
Nonsense. No basis for it…
So you agree that the appointment of Jack Smith by Garland is nonsense. Cool.
Page 1 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News