- 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 10:22 am to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:22 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
No bro. You are totally NOT rejecting debate about it.
I've posted the cases. Feel free to cite any others that support your stance.
I'm not rejecting debate. I'm waiting for the case law.
ITT, another person disagreed with me, posted case law, and I asked him a question, b/c his cite had some potential validity.
You have the opportunity to do the same. Show me the cases that offer a different ruling and accept this argument. If those cases don't exist, it's not me who is rejecting the debate: it's reality.
0
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:24 am to Timeoday
quote:
SCOTUS Roberts now has authority to appoint new Judges to SCOTUS under AG Garland rule.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:31 am to SlowFlowPro
I guess what I’m saying, I understand that judges are appointed by the senate and have to be impeached from the house. But the USSCJ should have a grading system, and refer them to congress to be impeached. Over time habitual offenders would have documentation to support the referral to be impeached.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:35 am to Datbawwwww
quote:
I guess what I’m saying, I understand that judges are appointed by the senate and have to be impeached from the house. But the USSCJ should have a grading system, and refer them to congress to be impeached. Over time habitual offenders would have documentation to support the referral to be impeached.
Interesting idea I’m going to think about more. My initial reaction is this would impede on the independence the Constitution designed for the judiciary by stating Article III judges will serve lifetime appointments during times of good behavior. That’s traditionally been read to mean as long as they’re not committing crimes or fricking up in their personal lives. Their judicial interpretation of the law is supposed to be insulated from Congressional oversight to ensure an independent judiciary.
This post was edited on 6/19/24 at 10:37 am
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:35 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
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.
I think SFP in the know is basing his entire theory on past SC's have been challenged unsuccessfully.
Possibly failing to see that if he were to study the history of the SC appointments, they were all US Attorneys, long revered DOJ honest Bob votive candles. Even Congress banged the gavel and expressed the BS that honest Bob was fair and balanced.
And that all's that has to happen is a few politicos in DC say how fair and balanced honest Bob was.
Jack Smith took his ball and ran off to the ICC after SCOTUS dressed him down.
Us non -lawyer stupid people can even see..... that the fruit cake Weissmann, (who gave Judge Merchan a verbal blow-job live on TV)
Could not have been challenged if he was appointed as a SC...As he was one of them in the DOJ coven and not rejected to a court overseas, that the USA does not even recognize.
But I am probably as stupid as Julie Kelly-what do I know? Please stand by for Garlands lawyer SFP in the know.
This post was edited on 6/19/24 at 10:40 am
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:37 am to cajunangelle
It’s a little early in the day to be knee deep in your box of wine, babe.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:38 am to cajunangelle
quote:
I think SFP in the know is basing his entire theory on past SC's have been challenged unsuccessfully.
Using the exact same argument. Why wouldn't you look to history/precedent to analyze the argument today?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Oh please. I'll give you one more chance to admit you made no sense.
I'll give you one more chance at intellectual honesty.
Here's what you said,
quote:How is one being described in the Constitution important to your assertion that the comparison is bad logic?
The Supreme Court is not an Executive Agency, for one. It's a body specifically described in the Constitution.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:44 am to boosiebadazz
I think they're twisting more cleverness and added a layer: Mueller was OK because Congress did approve him in the past, so somehow that transfers to an appointment to an inferior position. Since Jack hasn't ever been approved by Congress, they can't skip the step.
It's confusing because it makes no sense.
Still have no idea why the Hague is being referenced, though.
It's confusing because it makes no sense.
Still have no idea why the Hague is being referenced, though.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 10:54 am to AlxTgr
quote:
How is one being described in the Constitution important to your assertion that the comparison is bad logic?
The Constitution specifically states how federal judges are appointed.
Executive Agencies as a concept are described in the Constitution, but not each agency itself, as they are created via Congress and the Executive.
Federal courts (especially the Supreme Court) are specifically addressed in terms of the Constitution, and, specific to this argument, how they are appointed.
Executive agencies do not have such defined limits, and, other than specific offices (outlined in the Constitution), are bound to Congress and the President (instead of the Constitution) in determining their limits/powers and appointment processes.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:00 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
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.
Reading Section A I cannot find any statutory language that Congress authorized the creation of an Office of Special Counsel or any office that has the same power of a U.S. Attorney - which is what Jack Smith has.
Which one of the stutes noted do you think most clearly shows Congress grante4d such power?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yay! I knew you could do it. This would have been great in your first post. I still don't agree with you, but you've made progress.
The Constitution specifically states how federal judges are appointed.
Executive Agencies as a concept are described in the Constitution, but not each agency itself, as they are created via Congress and the Executive.
Federal courts (especially the Supreme Court) are specifically addressed in terms of the Constitution, and, specific to this argument, how they are appointed.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Executive agencies appoint subordinates all the time. The USSC cannot appoint subordinates.
What exactly does this mean?. Appoint in what capacity? Are you referring to senior level that require congressional approval? Every day staff? At what level or responsibility does one differentiate between hired and appointed? What are the established rules regarding job duties and responsibilities that trigger congressional oversight? The list could go on and I think that was the point…
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:05 am to AlxTgr
quote:
This would have been great in your first post.
It was stated in my first post, just efficiently.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:No
It was stated in my first post, just efficiently.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:07 am to JimEverett
quote:
Reading Section A I cannot find any statutory language that Congress authorized the creation of an Office of Special Counsel or any office that has the same power of a U.S. Attorney - which is what Jack Smith has.
5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(2), (b)(A), (b)(B), (d)(3)
28 U.S.C. § 509
28 U.S.C. § 515(a), 516
28 U.S.C. § 516
Just look at 515
quote:
28 U.S. Code § 515 - Authority for legal proceedings; commission, oath, and salary for special attorneys
quote:
(a)The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought.
(b)Each attorney specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice shall be commissioned as special assistant to the Attorney General or special attorney, and shall take the oath required by law. Foreign counsel employed in special cases are not required to take the oath. The Attorney General shall fix the annual salary of a special assistant or special attorney.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:11 am to TROLA
quote:
What exactly does this mean?.
The USSC can only be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.
Heads of departments face similar appointment processes, but the inferiors under the Secretary do not.
quote:
Are you referring to senior level that require congressional approval?
I specifically said "subordinates" and not the acting secretary or roles specifically required to go through the appointment-Senatorial approval process.
so a USA for a district is a specific, rare, example of a subordinate (Under the Secretary) who requires the appoint-approval process, but an AUSA under that USA does not. They're an inferior officer.
quote:\
At what level or responsibility does one differentiate between hired and appointed? What are the established rules regarding job duties and responsibilities that trigger congressional oversight? The list could go on and I think that was the point
Read the quotes from the case I cited a few pages ago. It answers your questions.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
All you're doing is typing insults with no "dismantling" Even your post above did nothing. It was a statement without justification.
Alternative universe.
quote:
just declare victory and beat your chest
Staggering lack of self awareness, pairs perfectly with your delusions of grandeur.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:14 am to SlowFlowPro
Thanks, SFP.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 11:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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.
True.
But, and I do not know if this is true, Meese is arguing that the the "special counsel" appointed prior to legislation creating the Independent Counsel were one of to things: 1. existing U.S. attorneys assigned to a special case not normally withing their jurisdiction; or 2. an outside counsel brought in to assist a U.S. Attorney.
Congress specifically creating the Office Independent Counsel was done to create an office with all the powers of a U.S. Attorney but shielded to some degree form the Executive Branch.
Now we have a special counsel - not specifically authorized by Congress, operating with all the power of a U.S. Attorney but without the Congressional appointment, and subject to removal by the AG or President.
Why would Congress not renew the IC statute and at the same time NOT create an Office of Special Counsel in the scheme the Attorney General has regulated?
i get that is not anywhere near a dispositive, or even a necessarily strong, argument. But it does, I think, show that Meese and them have something here.
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News