- 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
0
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:29 pm to elposter
quote:
They may have a little different angle this time as Jack Smith has never been confirmed by the Senate
quote:
Thus, if Special Counsel Mueller is a principal officer, his
appointment was in violation of the Appointments Clause
because he was not appointed by the President with advice and
consent of the Senate. Binding precedent instructs that Special
Counsel Mueller is an inferior officer under the Appointments
Clause.
quote:
Because binding precedent establishes that Congress has
“by law” vested authority in the Attorney General to appoint
the Special Counsel as an inferior officer, this court has no need
to go further to identify the specific sources of this authority.
See generally Grand Jury Investigation, 315 F. Supp. 3d at
651–58; see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 515(b), 533(1). Miller’s cursory
references to a “clear statement” argument he presented to the
district court are insufficient to preserve that issue for appeal
and it is forfeited. New York Rehab. Care Mgmt., LLC v. NLRB,
506 F.3d 1070, 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Carducci v. Regan, 714
F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1983); see United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 733 (1993).
You need to explain the difference to me, and why it would matter if Smith is determined to be an "inferior officer".
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
I thought the light was shown on AG the other day that he couldn’t be given Special Prosecutor status since he was never confirmed and had no legal authority to act as so ?
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:32 pm to Nosevens
quote:
I thought the light was shown on AG the other day that he couldn’t be given Special Prosecutor status since he was never confirmed and had no legal authority to act as so ?
Are you talking about Massie embarrassing himself (which made me somewhat sad)?
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What examples of "toting water" by me do you have?
The fact that you defended this case even being brought is a start.
Do the judge and DA get to make up new laws or rules as they go while simultaneously not allowing the Defense to present their case?
There are 2 right out of the gate.
But it's been a long day of work for me and I am just getting caught up on things.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:40 pm to loogaroo
Cannon should receive the Medal of Freedom. She’s literally saving the Republic while many others hide under their desks. I hope to be this kind of person some day.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:41 pm to Speckhunter2012
quote:
The fact that you defended this case even being brought is a start.
Correcting a lot of people posting incorrect things isn't "defending"
quote:
Do the judge and DA get to make up new laws o
Like this. Perfect example. This never happened.
quote:
There are 2 right out of the gate.
And then you double down
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
Mueller has, at least, been appointed and confirmed by the Senate at some point. And of course Weiss has too. Jack Smith never has.
As for why lack of nomination and confirmation even matters if the special counsel position is deemed an inferior officer - that is where I think there is a good change the current Supreme Court may revisit just where and how Congress has ever explicitly granted the Attorney General the power to appoint a special counsel as an "inferior officer" to stand in the shoes of a US Attorney without nomination and confirmation.
Justice Thomas already hinted as much during oral arguments in the immunity case.
As for why lack of nomination and confirmation even matters if the special counsel position is deemed an inferior officer - that is where I think there is a good change the current Supreme Court may revisit just where and how Congress has ever explicitly granted the Attorney General the power to appoint a special counsel as an "inferior officer" to stand in the shoes of a US Attorney without nomination and confirmation.
Justice Thomas already hinted as much during oral arguments in the immunity case.
This post was edited on 6/5/24 at 6:55 pm
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:47 pm to elposter
Can the AG fire the SP? Can he overrule a decision by the SP?
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:48 pm to elposter
quote:
the current Supreme Court may revisit just where and how Congress has ever explicitly granted the Attorney General the power to appoint a special counsel as an "inferior officer" to stand in the shoes of a US Attorney with nomination and confirmation.
Why would they upset/overrule 50 year-old precedent?
There isn't even a controversy in the circuits so I'm not sure why they'd even take it up. Everywhere is on board. Maybe if they try this in the 5th Circuit and they upset the system.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correcting a lot of people posting incorrect things isn't "defending"
You have repeatedly said the only thing wrong with the case was the jury instructions, which is an absolute absurdity.
No one, and I mean no one, takes you seriously. You’re a hack. A a slimy, squirmy, obfuscating little weasel.
Saying the obvious which is that the case will be overturned on appeal is IN NO WAY condemning Merchan’s actions throughout the trial. Such as, not allowing the trial to be public, not allowing the defenses expert FEC witness to testify, donating to the Biden campaign, and running on “getting Trump”, just for starters.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:50 pm to Paddyshack
quote:
You have repeatedly said the only thing wrong with the case was the jury instructions,
quote:
Like this. Perfect example. This never happened.
quote:
No one, and I mean no one, takes you seriously. You’re a hack. A a slimy, squirmy, obfuscating little weasel.
...says the guy who can't get basic facts right
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
ays the guy who can't get basic facts right
And yet again, you have nothing substantive to add in response.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 6:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why would they upset/overrule 50 year-old precedent?
Bad precedent should be overruled.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 7:00 pm to imjustafatkid
Why is it bad precedent?
Inferior officers are pretty well established for a lot longer than 50 years.
Inferior officers are pretty well established for a lot longer than 50 years.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 7:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
Had Trump announced 18 months ago that he was not running and that it was Desantis’ time to shine, would this case have been brought to trial?
Posted on 6/5/24 at 7:02 pm to elposter
quote:
Justice Thomas already hinted as much during oral arguments in the immunity case.
They know.
That’s why they want him dead. That’s also why he needs heightened security
Posted on 6/5/24 at 7:06 pm to kbro
quote:
Had Trump announced 18 months ago that he was not running and that it was Desantis’ time to shine, would this case have been brought to trial?
No idea. I can't predict the future in the past of an alternate reality.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 7:07 pm to bamadontcare
quote:
That’s why they want him dead. That’s also why he needs heightened security
If this goes to the USSC I imagine it's 7-2 or 6-3, so this is a bit histrionic.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 7:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No idea. I can't predict the future in the past of an alternate reality
This answer proves you’re totally full of shite on this entire issue. You’re a disingenuous tool masquerading as a legal fact checker for the board.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News