re: SCOTUS Roberts now has authority to appoint new Judges to SCOTUS under AG Garland rule.

My mistake, it wasn’t challenging before the USSC. I’ll edit to add my full thoughts.

Shut the frick up. No one cares what you have to say. You disingenuous pile of shite. frick off.

quote:

---

And that’s exactly why his appointment is unconstitutional. There is no oversight or accountability for a “special prosecutor”, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they reside on. It’s moot!

---

Literally every court who has addressed this issue disagrees with you.

The office is considered an inferior office to the AG

quote:

---

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Appointments Clause distinguishes between “principal officers,” who must be nominated by the President with advice and consent of the Senate, and “inferior officers,” who may be appointed by the President alone, or by heads of departments, or by the judiciary, as Congress allows. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 670–71 (1988) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 132 (1976)). 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.

An inferior officer is one “whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 663 (1997). In Edmond, the Supreme Court applied three factors to determine whether an officer was inferior: degree of oversight, final decision-making authority, and removability. Id. at 66366. According to Miller, those considerations point to Special Counsel Mueller being a principal, rather than inferior, officer because the Office of Special Counsel regulations impose various limitations on the Attorney General’s ability to exercise effective oversight of the Special Counsel. But as foreshadowed in this court’s opinion in In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1987), a supervisor’s ability to rescind provisions assuring an officer’s independence can render that officer inferior. There, this court recognized that an independent counsel was an inferior officer because his office was created pursuant to a regulation and “the Attorney General may rescind this regulation at any time, thereby abolishing the Office of Independent Counsel.” Id. at 56; see Morrison, 487 U.S. at 721 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

The Attorney General, an officer appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, has authority to rescind at any time the Office of Special Counsel regulations or otherwise render them inapplicable to the Special Counsel. Unlike the independent counsel in Morrison, 487 U.S. at 660–64, whose independence and tenure protection were secured by Title VI of the Ethics in Government Act, Special Counsel Mueller is subject to greater executive oversight because the limitations on the Attorney General’s oversight and removal powers are in regulations that the Attorney General can revise or repeal, see 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(2), (b)(A), (b)(B), (d)(3); absent such limitations, the Attorney General would retain plenary supervisory authority of the Special Counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 509. Furthermore, even if at the time of the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller only the Attorney General could rescind the regulations, the Acting Attorney General could essentially accomplish the same thing with specific regard to Special Counsel Mueller by amending his Appointment Order of May 17, 2017, to eliminate the Order’s good cause limitations on the Special Counsel’s removal (on which Miller focuses particular attention).

In either event, Special Counsel Mueller effectively serves at the pleasure of an Executive Branch officer who was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 515(a), 516; Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 509 (2010); Appointment Order (May 17, 2017). The control thereby maintained means the Special Counsel is an inferior officer. See Sealed Case, 829 F.2d at 56–57. Miller’s contention that Special Counsel Mueller is a principal officer under the Appointments Clause thus fails.

The question whether Congress has “by law” vested appointment of Special Counsel Mueller in the Attorney General has already been decided by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974), the Court stated: “[Congress] has also vested in [the Attorney General] the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533.” In acting pursuant to those statutes, the Court held, the Attorney General validly delegated authority to a special prosecutor to investigate offenses arising out of the 1972 presidential election and allegations involving President Richard M. Nixon. Id. Miller contends, unpersuasively, that the quoted sentence in Nixon, 418 U.S. at 694, is dictum because the issue whether the Attorney General had statutory authority to appoint a special prosecutor was not directly presented and the Supreme Court did not analyze the text of the specific statutes. It is true that a statement not necessary to a court’s holding is dictum. See City of Okla. City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 842 (1985); Sierra Club v. EPA, 322 F.3d 718, 724 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Martello v. Hawley, 300 F.2d 721, 722–23 (D.C. Cir. 1962). But Miller misreads Nixon, for the Supreme Court was presented with the question whether a justiciable controversy existed. When the Special Prosecutor issued a subpoena to the President to produce certain recordings and documents, the President moved to quash the subpoena, asserting a claim of executive privilege, id. at 688, and maintained the claim was nonjusticiable because it was “intra-executive” in character, id. at 689. The Supreme Court held there was a justiciable controversy because the regulations issued by the Attorney General gave the Special Prosecutor authority to contest the President’s invocation of executive privilege during the investigation. Id. at 695–97. In this analysis, the Attorney General’s statutory authority to issue the regulations was a necessary antecedent to determining whether the regulations were valid, and, therefore, was necessary to the decision that a justiciable controversy existed. The Supreme Court’s quoted statement regarding the Attorney General’s power to appoint subordinate officers is, therefore, not dictum. Moreover, under this court’s precedent, “carefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative.” United States v. Fields, 699 F.3d 518, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

Furthermore, in Sealed Case, 829 F.2d at 52–53, this court recognized that the statutory scheme creating the Department vests authority in the Attorney General to appoint inferior officers to investigate and to prosecute matters with a level of independence. There, the Attorney General appointed an independent counsel and promulgated regulations to create an office to investigate whether Lieutenant Colonel Oliver L. North and other officials violated federal criminal law in connection with the shipment or sale of military arms to Iran and the transfer or diversion of funds connected to any sales (referred to as the Iran/Contra matter). The Attorney General also authorized the independent counsel to prosecute any violations of federal criminal laws uncovered during investigation of the Iran/Contra matter. Id. at 52. North refused to comply with a grand jury subpoena, arguing that the independent counsel’s appointment was invalid. Id. at 54–55. This court disagreed:

---

quote:

---

You are referencing case law that allows a USA’s ability to fill their office with legal professionals to carry out the duty of the office.

---

I'm referencing case law over the literal same argument made over literally the same situation (just a different special counsel)

Wrong!

Whose jurisdiction does Smith fall under? Is it Garland? Or is it the DC circuit USA’s? What is the structure of the arrangement of the appointment? What constitutional grounds is the “special prosecutor” appointed under? Where are the checks and balances of Smith’s appointment? Fun fact: he is a rogue prosecutor and has been confirmed to be rogue in the past on at least 2 separate occasions by the USSC.

As I stated before, there are 93 USA’s, all have been vetted and approved by congress. Each of the USA’s has accountability and oversight from congress; every assistant they hire to fulfill the duties of government answers to the USA’s office. The “special counsel or prosecutor” is a grey area, a tool, that bureaucratic partisans use!

Why not use a constitutionally appointed USA’s office?

quote:

---

They didn't even appeal to the USSC b/c it was a losing argument.

---

They didnt appeal because the report was exonerating and in Barr's hands within days of the decision.

quote:

---

I'm not saying that decision creates a precedent

---

Then what are you saying? Because it sure sounds like you want anyone who thinks this Meese makes a decent argument to stfu.

I'm certain I'm not alone in wondering why you seem to be such a dog with a bone over legal theories that might help Republicans, yet say almost nothing critical of far more insane legal theories used to jail them.

this is the part where he says to look at his avi that he has been fighting pissed at all of this since before 2016. we know he was thinking up his theory on this subject in the womb.

and yes he only pipes in for 12 pages when it is to defend the scumbags at DOJ DC apparatus, added bonus if it is against OMB.

like boosie he is into the lawfare blog and probably got his he is right from there. lawfare bloggers post just like him, especially Benjamin Witte, Comey's leaker in crime. They have a disqual tracker amongst all of the Trump Trials they plot.

the simplest thing of a US Attorney already credentialed versus a recluse loser like Jack Smith smacked down by SCOTUS (like Weissmann) And how the Hague is not recognized by the USA seems to be lost on him.

Garland needed someone willing to entrap with classified folder photos leaked to WaPo. Garland needed zero scruples someone willing to leak Trump had the nuclear codes. Garland needed someone that wouldn't be accountable as they flew off back to the Hague.

quote:

---

Executive agencies appoint subordinates all the time.

---

He wasnt a subordinate, he was not even an employee of the federal govt.

And no they dont "anoint" a special prosecuter, congress does.

quote:

---

Then what are you saying?

---

That we have multiple courts who have examined this issue and ruled uniformly on that issue, including the 2nd most influential court in the US.

quote:

---

Because it sure sounds like you want anyone who thinks this Meese makes a decent argument to stfu.

---

I'm providing them court cases where people who make the decisions on these arguments told him to STFU

quote:

---

I'm not alone in wondering why you seem to be such a dog with a bone over legal theories that might help Republicans,

---

Mueller was appointed by a Republican AG