- 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 9:16 am to Paddyshack
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:16 am to Paddyshack
essentially, his argument is that actual scholars, journalists and elected officials know less about the way the federal government works than some fat ambulance chaser from BR
0
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:17 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
anyone can do that, loser.
Apparently not. Just look at all the incorrect statements of the law ITT, even when I gave them the case law to review.
quote:
OP is a legitimate criticism of the Smith appointment
OP is relying on an argument that has already been struck down EVERY time it's been tried.
Again, I cited actual binding case law citing USSC precedent to explain why, but instead the NPCs just want to REEEEEEE and throw out ad homs.
quote:
that's being debated by pundits, legal experts, and legislators
Who apparently can't ready easily-accessible case law
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:18 am to SlowFlowPro
right. everyone is stupid except for you. we get it
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:19 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
The interesting question would be whether the SC could still function if the AG who appointed him were removed. Given the foundational statutes from that opinion, I don’t think he could. T
He could not. Read the portion I quoted on this page.
Ability to remove the inferior officer is a defining characteristic of that status.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:20 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
right. everyone is stupid except for you. we get it
I even posted the applicable portion of the ruling you can read. Instead, you left out the "ad" and just REEE instead
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
you know Cannon is going to rule he was not properly appointed. Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:25 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
you know Cannon is going to rule he was not properly appointed.
And it will lead to people laughing at guys like Weismann calling her ruling stupid (again), and then adding another layer to the conspiracy when the appeals court overrules her (again).
We have seen this song and dance before.
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.
Same shite as dumb leftists.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He can, via USSC case law, which is why this argument has failed every single time it has been brought up.
Besides the Mueller case in the DC Circuit. what other cases have addressed the issue?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
did not. I cited history accurately.
Yes you did. You called her rulings embarrassing.
quote:
I'm making no partisan commentary and just citing case law
Lol....ok
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It is not.
What I said is correct.
quote:Totally irrelevant.
The Supreme Court is not an executive agency
The Supreme Court is established specifically by the Constitution
quote:It can be or it can't be. In this context, it is totally logical. That you can't see it is a you problem, and not surprising really. Logic has never been your strong suit, and since it can't really be taught, you should really just avoid it.
comparing the USSC to an executive agency is not logical
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Except the Chief Justice never has had the power to appoint anyone as an inferior justice.
Which is why SCOTUS Roberts will use it. He wants to test the waters as AG Garland has done with Jackie!! What if SCOTUS Roberts appoints 7 new CONSERVATIVE justices that align with Clarence Thomas?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:34 am to JimEverett
quote:
Besides the Mueller case in the DC Circuit. what other cases have addressed the issue?
Manafort tried.
I think the Russian defendants tried.
This is the genesis of the argument
quote:
Why Robert Mueller’s Appointment As Special Counsel Was Unlawful
quote:
Steven G. Calabresi
Northwestern University - Pritzker School of Law
Gary Lawson
Boston University School of Law
Date Written: January 28, 2019
I tihnk this might be the same paper for free
Here is the Manafort ruling
quote:
The Acting Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel and authorized him to conduct the investigation at issue here in a manner consistent with statutory authority. Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the U.S. government. See 28 U.S.C. § 516. At the same time, Congress has authorized the Attorney General to appoint subordinates to assist in discharging these duties when necessary. See id. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533. In this regard, Congress enabled the Attorney General to "specially retain[ ]" attorneys "commissioned as special assistant to the Attorney General or special attorney" and to authorize these special assistants to "conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings." Id. § 515. Precisely this occurred here. The Acting Attorney General decided that it was necessary to delegate the criminal investigation at issue here to a "specially retained" attorney and as such, commissioned the Special Counsel and directed him to investigate generally "any links...between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and more specifically "any allegations that [defendant] committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments [defendant] received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych[.]" August 2 Scope Memorandum at 1–2. Accordingly, the Acting Attorney General acted within his statutory authority when he appointed the Special Counsel and as such, the Special Counsel had legal authority to investigate and prosecute this case.
In sum, because the Special Counsel's appointment was consistent with both constitutional requirements regarding appointment of officers and statutory requirements governing the authority to conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States, the Special Counsel had legal authority to investigate and to prosecute this matter and dismissal of the Superseding Indictment is not warranted.
This theory emerged in that 2018-2019 time period, so there have only been so many special counsels appointed in that time frame.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:36 am to AlxTgr
quote:
Totally irrelevant.
How?
We are discussing the power of an executive agency to appoint an inferior officer.
Distinguishing the USSC from that paradigm or arguing the USSC follows the same paradigm is the literal foundation of the argument at hand
quote:
In this context, it is totally logical
Based on what, other than your conclusory opinions?
quote:
That you can't see it is a you problem, and not surprising really. Logic has never been your strong suit,
Based on what, other than your conclusory opinions and ad hom attacks?
I predict you're about to either leave the thread or start talking in riddles to avoid defending your (incorrect) arguments.
This post was edited on 6/19/24 at 9:37 am
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:39 am to SlowFlowPro
Julie Kelly co hosted a lawyers opinion in the OP. So is Julie Kelly stupid or the lawyer she hosted is stupid?
Is Meese stupid?
Jack Smith being plucked from The Hague has everything to do with it all.
Jack was a recluse radical to the Hague because of gross Prosecutorial Misconduct in the USA and SCOTUS putting him in a corner with a dunce hat.
Is Meese stupid?
Jack Smith being plucked from The Hague has everything to do with it all.
Jack was a recluse radical to the Hague because of gross Prosecutorial Misconduct in the USA and SCOTUS putting him in a corner with a dunce hat.
quote:
"What gives you the authority to appoint a special counsel to create…you've created an office in the U.S. government that does not exist without authorization from Congress," Massie posed to Garland.
Massie referenced amicus briefs in the cases brought by the DOJ against Trump filed by former Attorney General Ed Meese under Ronald Reagan – in which he argues that the case that Garland's appointment of Smith — a private citizen — is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:40 am to cajunangelle
quote:
Is Meese stupid?
Trying to be clever is a better description.
quote:
Jack Smith being plucked from The Hague has everything to do with it all.
Jack was a recluse radical to the Hague because of gross Prosecutorial Misconduct in the USA and SCOTUS putting him in a corner with a dunce hat.
What does this have to do with the process upon which he was appointed?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:43 am to cajunangelle
quote:
What gives you the authority to appoint a special counsel to create…you've created an office in the U.S. government that does not exist without authorization from Congress," Massie posed to Garland.
It’s spelled out in Section A of the opinion SFP linked on page four of this thread. My copy button isn’t working on the .pdf of the opinion or I’d quote it for you.
I bet you don’t go read it
This post was edited on 6/19/24 at 9:50 am
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:This is meaningless. You have never supported the "illogical" conclusion with anything that makes any sense.
Distinguishing the USSC from that paradigm or arguing the USSC follows the same paradigm is the literal foundation of the argument at hand
quote:Logic.
Based on what, other than your conclusory opinions?
quote:Logic. Pointing out that you have been historically weak with logic is not ad hominin. It's sadly, simple truth.
Based on what, other than your conclusory opinions and ad hom attacks?
quote:Nah, I'm here. I've made no real arguments yet. I don't have to. You've made an assertion you can't support. Burden is on you. Good luck!
I predict you're about to either leave the thread or start talking in riddles to avoid defending your (incorrect) arguments.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:47 am to boosiebadazz
Garland not being prepared for that telegraphed gotcha attempt was embarrassing, but Massie lowering himself to this is just sad.
He's made a turn since he started hunting Johnson. Which is funny b/c he went to fricking bat for Kevin McCarthy only a few months ago
Even directly spat with Gaetz about it
He's made a turn since he started hunting Johnson. Which is funny b/c he went to fricking bat for Kevin McCarthy only a few months ago
Even directly spat with Gaetz about it
quote:
The twin defeats raised questions about the House GOP’s ability to govern — and its ability to count votes.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, who led the push to unseat McCarthy, pushed back on Massie’s remarks on X.
“McCarthy lied to us, made secret side deals, increased spending, got rolled by Biden and shrunk our majority by quitting when he couldn’t run the place,” the Florida Republican replied. “His removal was warranted.”
In response to a separate reply, Massie asked a commenter to “name one thing that’s improved under the new Speaker.”
Gaetz himself shot back, “Here’s one: we haven’t sent any money to Ukraine (yet).”
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:48 am to AlxTgr
quote:
This is meaningless.
How?
The original comparison was an executive agency to the Supreme Court. How is distinguishing their formation and appointment powers "meaningless" to a discussion about their....appointment powers?
quote:
You've made an assertion you can't support
Which assertion?
I've literally supported my arguments either with case law or the constitution.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It has no meaning.
How?
quote:Laugh emoji all you want, but the fact that you think the two being compared is not logical is honestly embarrassing. Explain why.
The original comparison was an executive agency to the Supreme Court. How is distinguishing their formation and appointment powers "meaningless" to a discussion about their....appointment powers?
quote:Case law doesn't support your assertion re: logic.
I've literally supported my arguments either with case law or the constitution.
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News