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

quote:

---

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

---

He became an inferior officer when he was appointed.

quote:

---

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

---

You sure you're not mixing this up with an Independent Counsel?

quote:

---

Amid the avalanche dem lawfare that you cant resist defending

---

I have not "defended" anything, ITT.

I've just stated the law, applicable rulings, statutes, etc. in response to this silly argument.

quote:

---

you think I'm referencing fricking Mueller?

---

I'm sorry that it blows up your argument by showing my commentary is the same even when a Republican appoints the special counsel

quote:

---

You'll say anything to convince yourself that you are right

---

You mean like citing the applicable cases discussing the issues?

You have had all the opportunity to post the cases that state the opposite and support your assertions. In fact, you still do.

quote:

---

the qualifier

---

It's typically the same in all legal threads where stupid theories get poked by the actual status of the law

Patriots seem to prefer this instead

quote:

---

Listen to grifters, no matter how dumb their arguments are.

Ignore the actual facts and defining characteristics of reality to support grifter position that confirms both (1) preconceived partisan belief and (2) groupthink upon which the NPC is committed

When grifters fail, add a layer to the conspiracy to explain how this happened.

---

Any attempt to educate them on the actual reality results in REEE responses and claims that stating reality is "defending" something

Except you dont get to reset your God awful schtick in every thread and perch yourself on some pedestal of objectivity, or worse, set some impossibly narrow standard of proof to those who call you out on your reputation for bias. We don't have to play by your rules. You are who you are and its a secret to no one.

The challenge has legal merit. I really dont GAF what you think, nor does anyone else on earth short of your mom (I bet she's so proud). The SCOTUS as currently constructed could easily favor this theory, and it would surprise exactly no one. Just as easily as some Jury in NYC could favor Bragg's asinine theories, surprising exactly no one.

quote:

---

Being a "war of attrition" type of poster, who thinks he's the victor because he was willing to stay up all night posting vomitous contrarian drivel when others weren't (only to vanish like a fart in a tornado once his AIDS thread gets anchored), is nothing to admire.

---

Being right is, however.

Wrong!

In response, the intent of Jack Smith is to be independent from the AG, and the USA’s; and I believe that is the component that you are missing or ignoring. It’s a special appointed “independent” prosecutor who has the same authority as the USA’s. However, if he were to go before congress, he would NEVER be allowed to be in his position because of past malpractice, misconduct, and unethical behavior.

So essentially the government is saying, “hey, we don’t want to seem partisan, so we are going to appoint the most unethical and partisan hack we can find to have an (independent investigation), oh by the way, we are granting him the full authority if constitutionally confirmed USA’s, to conduct business in an office that is not constitutionally authorized, and has zero congressional oversight”! It’s a JOKE!

quote:
“every assistant they hire to fulfill the duties of government answers to the USA’s office.”

“Like Jack Smith to Garland”

I’d like for you to explain this to me, how does an “independent prosecutor” fall under the jurisdiction of garland or any USA’s? If it’s independent, they are separate from the DOJ; there is zero constitutional language that authorizes this “independent” appointment. That’s the premise of the merits being argued! The case law you sited is irrelevant, it’s separate circumstances (such as a USA’s ability to fill the office to conduct the business if the USA) so it’s a moot point.

The DC Circuit is saying that a special counsel:
- has (or can have) all the power of a U.S. Attorney
- but unlike a U.S. Attorney the special counsel is an inferior officer and serves solely at the discretion of the AG

So under such a scheme, the AG could appoint a special counsel in every federal court district as a run around to the Congressionally authorized scheme of federal courts. Thus, an AG doesn't like a particular U.S. Attorney then he or she just appoint a special counsel to hear certain case or all cases in that district - bypassing Presidential nomination and appointment as well as Congressional approval of such an appointment. And its all legal because the AG can fire such a special counsel thereby making such a special counsel an "inferior officer" - even though the officer has all the power of a U.S. Attorney.

Seems to be a weird view.

quote:

---

So under such a scheme, the AG could appoint a special counsel in every federal court district as a run around to the Congressionally authorized scheme of federal courts.

---

They do this literally every day with AUSAs

Each district has to be head by a USA, which requires the appointment-approval process.

quote:

---

Seems to be a weird view.

---

Take it up with the USSC in the Nixon case

You are not right, you are proven wrong on a daily basis. Even with facts in your face, you attempt to twist, misinterpret, misrepresent, and manipulate facts in your favor. If you really are an attorney, you know you couldn’t present these arguments in court. You know this! However, this is a public forum, court of public opinion, and dude, you are NOT changing and minds and hearts to support your position. It’s actually the opposite effect. You have to be the most downvoted poster on this forum. Think about that.

quote:

---

They do this literally every day with AUSAs

Each district has to be head by a USA, which requires the appointment-approval process.

---

What Assistant U.S. Attorney has the authority and power of a U.S. Attorney?


As far as the Nixon case - the question in that case was not the legality of the appointment of a special counsel. Thus, there was no holding addressing the legality of such an appointment.