- 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 9:52 am to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:52 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
anyone can do that, loser. In nearly any direction you want to go, as a matter of fact. What have you proven other than you love the sound of your own voice?
OP is a legitimate criticism of the Smith appointment that's being debated by pundits, legal experts, and legislators alot smarter and more experienced than your fat, binge posting arse. Cranking out 30 more pages of verbal masturbation isnt going to change that. You cant whine your way into being right, no matter what your doting mother tells you.
people from Vacherie, La are simply the best and don't mince words too often. 
1
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:58 am to SlowFlowPro
I didn't know if there was something in the 2000s. Anything dealing with "Office of Special Counsel" created by Janet Reno.
And that seems to be the strongest argument the Meece/Federalist Society has. Which is that Congress has authorized the use of special counsels in order to aid U.S. Attorneys, not stand in for them. Therefore, any appointment to the "Office of Special Counsel", under regulations made by former AG Reno are illegal appointments.
It also seems like a decent argument to make as to why Congress ever felt the need to make an "Independent Counsel" statute if the AG can just promulgate regulations creating a position with the same powers.
And that seems to be the strongest argument the Meece/Federalist Society has. Which is that Congress has authorized the use of special counsels in order to aid U.S. Attorneys, not stand in for them. Therefore, any appointment to the "Office of Special Counsel", under regulations made by former AG Reno are illegal appointments.
It also seems like a decent argument to make as to why Congress ever felt the need to make an "Independent Counsel" statute if the AG can just promulgate regulations creating a position with the same powers.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 9:59 am to thebigmuffaletta
And....
.
It is cumstained.
.
It is cumstained.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:11 am to boosiebadazz
He likely isnt. An opinion shared by former attorneys General, legal scholars, and elected federal officials alike.
Amicus brief
But the message board loud mouth says we should all ignore these voices, reject this debate, and only focus on his opinion.
Amicus brief
But the message board loud mouth says we should all ignore these voices, reject this debate, and only focus on his opinion.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:13 am to JimEverett
quote:
And that seems to be the strongest argument the Meece/Federalist Society has. Which is that Congress has authorized the use of special counsels in order to aid U.S. Attorneys, not stand in for them. Therefore, any appointment to the "Office of Special Counsel", under regulations made by former AG Reno are illegal appointments.
It also seems like a decent argument to make as to why Congress ever felt the need to make an "Independent Counsel" statute if the AG can just promulgate regulations creating a position with the same powers.
I think the big variability is removal.
I don't think an AG could remove a SC appointed via statute, but can if it's acting as an inferior officer.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:13 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:14 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Amicus brief
quote:
AND LAW PROFESSORS STEVEN G. CALABRESI AND GARY S. LAWSON
Where have we heard those names before ITT?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think
quote:
I don't think
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:15 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
and only focus on his opinion.
My opinion? No.
I've posted 2 different judicial opinions on this very issue, argued by the same law professors.
I've made no opinions. I've just shown the reality that these opinions (as well as the precedent behind them) exist.
Do you have any rulings that differ legally from the ones I've posted?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:15 am to Vacherie Saint
I don’t think I’m rejecting debate about it. But I think the debate currently stops at the Section A roadmap I mentioned before. It’s Congress literally authorizing the structure used to appoint him.
If the constitutional check and balance is maintained through the AG, which it is now, I’ll need to see another argument as to why the current scheme doesn’t pass constitutional muster.
If the constitutional check and balance is maintained through the AG, which it is now, I’ll need to see another argument as to why the current scheme doesn’t pass constitutional muster.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Where have we heard those names before ITT?
on the list of people that wouldnt hire you to shine their shoes?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:17 am to AlxTgr
quote:
It has no meaning.
quote:
Laugh emoji all you want, but the fact that you think the two being compared is not logical is honestly embarrassing.
I'll give you one more chance at intellectual honesty.
1. What do you think is being compared, specifically?
2. Please give your summary of this arguments posted in OP:
quote:
The DOJ has no authority, either under the Constitution or federal law, to commission a new “officer of the United States” in the form of a Special Counsel with powers equivalent to a U.S. Attorney. To do so would be akin to the federal judiciary (all federal judges are “officers of the United States”) creating “special judges” with equivalent powers to decide legal matters, preside over jury trials, oversee grand juries, etc
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:18 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
on the list of people that wouldnt hire you to shine their shoes?
No. That's not where.
No reference to my shoe shining ability has been presented ITT.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:18 am to SlowFlowPro
post moar!
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:19 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
I don’t think I’m rejecting debate about it. But I think the debate currently stops at the Section A roadmap I mentioned before. It’s Congress literally authorizing the structure used to appoint him.
If the constitutional check and balance is maintained through the AG, which it is now, I’ll need to see another argument as to why the current scheme doesn’t pass constitutional muster.
Literally what I posted earlier
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.
With a splash of argument form authority as their only defense, even though those specific authorities have literally failed in every attempt to make this argument elsewhere.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:20 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
post moar!
REEEE harder
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:20 am to GumboPot
One question that I’ve been curious about, it’s my understanding that each USSCJ has an entire circuit that they have jurisdiction over. Why don’t the USSCJ discipline rogue judges? Even remove them from the bench?
Here is a link to the circuit assignments from the USSC website.
LINK
Here is a link to the circuit assignments from the USSC website.
LINK
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:20 am to SlowFlowPro
No bro. You are totally NOT rejecting debate about it.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:21 am to Datbawwwww
quote:
Why don’t the USSCJ discipline rogue judges? Even remove them from the bench?
You want Cannon removed if she rules the appointment was illegal?
That won't be popular here. She's speaking truth to power, baw.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:22 am to Datbawwwww
quote:
Why don’t the USSCJ discipline rogue judges? Even remove them from the bench?
Article III judges have to be impeached by Congress. SCOTUS doesn’t have that power.
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News