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

quote:

---

Ok y'all keep repeating this point. What specific powers were granted to Robert Mueller that compromise, "The authority and power of a U.S. Attorney"?

---

Ummm- the power to investigate and prosecute.

I think in your head, your intentions are good. I feel sorry for you. It would be bush league for me to curse you and call you names that you have earned, you definitely deserve it, you’ve worked very hard. I wish I know you personally, I’d honestly attempt to find a professional to help you move beyond what you are struggling with. It seems that you have devoted your life to be anti MAGA. There is a beautiful world out there, go have dinner with a friend, a family member, have a beer. SFP, go on a vacation, a cruise, get away for politics for a week or so. You’ll thank me later.

They are both wrong, like I mentioned earlier. BOTH are unconstitutional, however, this time, it’s before the USSC. We will have an answer very soon. I could be wrong. You could be wrong; life goes on and we will adapt.

quote:

---

It’s my opinion, you have your own.

---

I didn't ask for an opinion. I asked for facts

From the AC brief in the DC case before the USSC:

quote:

---

Although this Court could itself reach this issue now, it should wait for the lower courts to opine in the first instance. The Court has “expressly included Appointments Clause objections … in the category of nonjurisdictional structural constitutional objections that could be considered on appeal whether or not they were ruled upon below.” Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. 868, 878–879 (1991) (collecting cases). In this case, however, prudence dictates that the Court should wait. “Because this is ‘a court of review, not of first view,’ it is generally unwise to consider arguments in the first instance[.]” Byrd v. United States, 584 U.S. 395, 404 (2018) (quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n.7 (2005))

---

quote:

---

For these reasons, this Court in the meantime should not treat the current stay application as a petition for certiorari. The Court should instead follow the normal procedure under Sup. Ct. R. 13(1). That should allow ample time for lower courts to first rule on the Appointments Clause issue presented by the prosecutions currently led by Smith, and if necessary, for subsequent review of that question in this Court

---

The 2 law prof bros aren't even saying the USSC should rule on this issue, or that it's properly before the USSC.

Only sfp can generate 12 pages on every thread he enters - heck 9 of the 12 are his own posts. Never seen anything like it.

quote:

---

All 3 branches of govt are equal

---

That's what I said.

Executive agencies are not one of the 3 branches

quote:

---

quote:
Did these get upheld by the USSC?

The literal next best thing (DC COA), based on USSC precedent.

---

So, no the USSC has/ did not.

quote:

---

quote:
The SIGNIFICANT difference is Trump was not a sitting President when Jackass was appointed by AG Garland.

Manafort, Miller, etc were not sitting Presidents either

---

Does not do what you are claiming.

Miller/Manafort were part of SC Mueller investigation.

The Mueller appointment was to investigate Trump, correct? He was the President at that time correct?
The case you referenced that went in front of the DC COA was about the legality of Mueller's appointment, correct?

Let's see if you can connect the dots .

Has there been a case that a SC appointment didn't go through Presidential nomination, confirmed by Senate but was appointed by the AG to investigate anyone other than a sitting president?