- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:02 am to rds dc
quote:To paraphrase one of the "truly great thinkers of the modern era": If you like your job, you can keep your job.
The announcement that we really need to wait for happens after Whitaker meets with the ethics lawyer. Then DOJ announces that Whitaker can oversee the Mueller probe.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:11 am to cajunangelle
quote:
he has been wrong on more than one thing. I stick to my assertion counselor, he is an idiot.
okay.... so it is not political, his legal opinion has been called out so he is an idiot. they are all idiots in DC but Nap is a Fox news idiot.
better?
Man, how many times does this have to pointed out to you? It is a mistake to continually call those who twist and turn facts to try to justify their own behavior or call out the behavior of others idiots? They aren't idiots, they know EXACTLY what they are doing . What they are hoping is that a large enough percentage of the population are idiots and won't realize what they are doing.
There is a reason the swamp is waging an all out war on Trump, too bad so many Americans don't see it.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:17 am to Homesick Tiger
I have never even understood what the issue was here. The statute is crystal clear. I don't even know what Napolitano believed the language of the statute could possibly mean other than what it actually says...:
Plain as damn day. Did he serve with the agency for at least 90 days during the last 365? Check. Did the president appoint him? Check. Is the position equal to or above the minimum rate of pay? Check. That is all that is required. Period.
quote:
(a) If an officer of an Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the Government Accountability Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office— (1) the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; (2) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or (3) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct an officer or employee of such Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity, subject to the time limitations of section 3346, if— (A) during the 365-day period preceding the date of death, resignation, or beginning of inability to serve of the applicable officer, the officer or employee served in a position in such agency for not less than 90 days; and (B) the rate of pay for the position described under subparagraph (A) is equal to or greater than the minimum rate of pay payable for a position at GS–15 of the General Schedule.
Plain as damn day. Did he serve with the agency for at least 90 days during the last 365? Check. Did the president appoint him? Check. Is the position equal to or above the minimum rate of pay? Check. That is all that is required. Period.
This post was edited on 11/14/18 at 10:22 am
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:21 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
I dont understand how legal opinions can differ. The law is supposed to be black and white so why is there room for any interpretation?
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:23 am to cajunangelle
quote:Only since Trump. He was once pretty straight shooting. Exudes an obvious bias now (shouldn't say now because I quit all tv news). I guess I read his biased comments on here and they rarely play out to be correct.
judge Nap is an idiot.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:24 am to TennesseeFan25
You can have ambiguities in the law....or unique fact patterns that are outside of the norm for what the purpose of the statute was. But here, there is no ambiguity. Unless they are arguing there is a conflicting statute somewhere, I don't see what the fuss is about....
Posted on 11/14/18 at 10:37 am to Homesick Tiger
they knew all along Whitaker was legal. they have moved along...
colonoscopy is next after they review his tax records...
it is like the dogma of certain non dem judges will be questioned, but all dem judges ( and govt appointments) don't get raked over the coals to waste time in silliness.
colonoscopy is next after they review his tax records...
it is like the dogma of certain non dem judges will be questioned, but all dem judges ( and govt appointments) don't get raked over the coals to waste time in silliness.
This post was edited on 11/14/18 at 10:38 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News