- 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
re: SCOTUS Roberts now has authority to appoint new Judges to SCOTUS under AG Garland rule.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:02 am to udtiger
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:02 am to udtiger
quote:
So...a subordinate can exercise a power the head of that branch of government cannot.
Yeah, you're right...dumb logic.
I've already posted the various cases for you.
Literally every time this comes up, it's smacked down. Even if Canon rules against Smith, it's almost a guarantee she will be reversed (like she already was in her initial, embarrassing rulings)
0
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:02 am to SlowFlowPro
The argument is incomplete and poorly worded. The US Attorney and the other assistant attorney Generals requires nomination by the President and then the advise and consent of the Senate. Federal Judges also require nomination of the President and advise and consent of the Senate. If the Attorney General, the Head of the DOJ can ignore the nominating and approval process then The Chief Justice, head of the Judiciary, should also be able to do the same.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:04 am to Timeoday
Just remember , Garland was nominated for the USSC. Built for a miracle he would be there shredding the constitution. He is in his revenge tour , but it will be short lived as he will either be called to task by Congress or out after the election.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:05 am to cajunandy
quote:
If the Attorney General, the Head of the DOJ can ignore the nominating and approval process then The Chief Justice, head of the Judiciary, should also be able to do the same.
Except the Chief Justice never has had the power to appoint anyone as an inferior justice.
The AG does have the authority to appoint anyone as an inferior officer.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not according to the current USSC jurisprudence and any case where this argument has been made.
Ewin Meese disagrees.
I know I'm appealing to authority here but I don't have time to read his amicus and distill it down to one or two lines for the board.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:08 am to cajunandy
quote:
The argument is incomplete and poorly worded.
Agreed.
.
quote:
The US Attorney and the other assistant attorney Generals requires nomination by the President and then the advise and consent of the Senate.
Also agreed.
The real point is that there is nothing authorizing Merrick Garland to appoint Jack Smith to the position he’s in unilaterally.
Because there is no legal standing for the role Smith is acting in, none of his actions have any standing either.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:09 am to GumboPot
quote:
Ewin Meese disagrees.
Yes he and another professor (I'm forgetting the name) have made this a crusade for some time and have literally lost every time they've tried.
quote:
I know I'm appealing to authority here but I don't have time to read his amicus and distill it down to one or two lines for the board.
I have already posted the DC Court of Appeals on here with snippets multiple times.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I didn't. I call her dishonest. Due to that, her output is stupid
I’m so glad you agree with the kid didlers.
We are going to see you in the news one day.
This post was edited on 6/19/24 at 8:11 am
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:13 am to tide06
quote:
The real point is that there is nothing authorizing Merrick Garland to appoint Jack Smith to the position he’s in unilaterally.
Except that Garland can appoint inferior officers, which is what Jack Smith's position is officially considered.
This has been the law for a long time, but it was officially memorialized during the Nixon admin and has been confirmed thereafter universally.
It would take the USSC reversing precedent to support this argument.
This is the DC Court of Appeals ruling on the same argument, but Mueller
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:14 am to dgnx6
quote:
I’m so glad you agree with the kid didlers.
We are going to see you in the news one day.
Weird strawman diversion is weird.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
DC Court of Appeals
I would love to see this go up to SCOTUS via Cannon>11th>(maybe en banc)>SCOTUS and avoid the DC courts who have an extreme institutional bias.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:19 am to SlowFlowPro
Did you even read the article?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:19 am to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
Did you even read the article?
Yes. It's dumb.
I posted actual case law instead of her dishonest grifting.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:20 am to GumboPot
quote:
and avoid the DC courts who have an extreme institutional bias.
The case I cited was about a Republican-appointed SC...
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:22 am to SlowFlowPro
Isn't the constitution just a suggestion?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
have literally lost every time they've tried.
Given our judicial system is worthless trash I don't know why you think this moves the needle in an argument.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:25 am to Oizers
quote:
Isn't the constitution just a suggestion?
No
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:26 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Given our judicial system is worthless trash I don't know why you think this moves the needle in an argument.
If the basis of your opinion is that there is no value to the judicial system, then logically you're not allowed to have opinions about anything related to that system, b/c those opinions are as valuable as the base you assign to the system itself. So why even give the input?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:28 am to SlowFlowPro
Well that's a bullshite comment.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 8:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
then logically you're not allowed to have opinions about anything related to that system, b/c those opinions are as valuable as the base you assign to the system itself.
This statement is entirely irrational.
Page 2 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News