- 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

Thomas to Jack Smith and Garland: You don’t have Authority
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:12 am
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:12 am
quote:
Justice Thomas' concurrence in Trump v. U.S. is hugely significant. He questions whether Special Counsel Jack Smith's office is constitutional. "If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President."
We cannot ignore the importance that the Constitution places on who creates a federal office. To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be 'established by Law.' As James Madison cautioned, '[i]f there is any point in which the separation of the Legislative and Executive powers ought to be maintained with greater caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.' 1 Annals of Cong. 581. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord.
quote:
Justice Thomas launches a legal missile at AG Merrick Garland: "It is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office 'established by Law,' as required by the Constitution" "...None of the statutes cited by the Attorney General appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose" "...Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause"
In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President 'is not above the law.' But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law...
Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed. We must respect the Constitution’s separation of powers in all its forms, else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee
This post was edited on 7/1/24 at 10:14 am
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:20 am to RaoulDuke504
Cannon just made her decision...
This post was edited on 7/1/24 at 10:21 am
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:20 am to RaoulDuke504
Dems be getting their shite pushed in lately, lefties don't like it
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:23 am to Timeoday
In before SFP keeps repeating this has been settled law by the DC court.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:24 am to RaoulDuke504
Of course Justice Thomas is spot on. If the Court would have been this measured in US v. Nixon, then I believe a LOT of the political rancor in this country over the past 50 years would have never existed.
This post was edited on 7/1/24 at 10:25 am
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:25 am to RaoulDuke504
JCT the Great sending air cover to Judge Cannon on the same motion pending before her.
If the special counsel is nuked after the presumption of immunity is decided, then the entirety of this lawfare is declared a sham.
If the special counsel is nuked after the presumption of immunity is decided, then the entirety of this lawfare is declared a sham.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:26 am to RaoulDuke504
What are the criteria for appointing a Special Counsel? Approval by Congress?
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:31 am to RaoulDuke504
Garland, a person the left thinks should be on the court, is showing just how inept the left is.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:34 am to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
Garland, a person the left thinks should be on the court, is showing just how inept the left is.
Unbelievable how close we were to absolute disaster...
Noone will ever convince me God himself did not intervene in this country's affairs in 2015/2016...
This post was edited on 7/1/24 at 10:35 am
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:37 am to RaoulDuke504
JCT is a giant for constitutional rule. An American treasure.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:39 am to RaoulDuke504
Where's the link for this?
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:40 am to POTUS2024
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:42 am to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
Garland, a person the left thinks should be on the court, is showing just how evil the left is.
FIFY
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:43 am to RaoulDuke504
Has the issue brought up by Justice Thomas been asserted at the trial court and argued to the D.C. Circuit? The majority opinion doesn't discuss it at all, which is odd since they normally would if it was an issue under appeal. Thomas sort of brings it up out of nowhere it seems. Not sure he can opine on issues not before the Court.. Let me know what I'm missing, as that argument seems to make a lot of sense.
Popular
Back to top

31









