- 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 12:56 pm to JimEverett
Posted on 6/19/24 at 12:56 pm to JimEverett
My question is this, why not assign sensitive cases to a US attorney that currently vetted and approved by congress; Who’s currently working for the DOJ under the executive branch? They can delegate their work to subordinates, while giving special attention to sensitive cases, this happens on a daily basis. Why bring in a “special counsel” that is highly partisan when we have competent people that have gone through the proper constitutional channels to be appointed?
The answer is simple!
The answer is simple!
1
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
You are missing the point. There is a constitutional process to appoint a US attorney, and they are confirmed by congress, they are subject to impeachment for misconduct; with a special counsel, they are beyond the reach of congress for impeachment. You’d have to impeach the AG. That would be a significant disruption to the function of government.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The nature of the 2 bodies.
You're saying SCOTUS does not make its own hires?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:08 pm to Datbawwwww
That's the crux of the theory presented in the OP. That Smith was a private citizen tabbed unilaterally by the AG to act as a Special Counsel - thereby creating a federal "office" and federal officer without congressional approval
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
Significance ? Not a critical thinker are you?
Well, I'm not a constitutional lawyer but I'm almost certain it's the specific reason why these previous (starting with Nixon) SC's that were appointed by AG and didn't go through the presidential appointment- senate confirmation process and were ruled ok by the USSC. Sitting president isn't going to appoint a SC to investigate himself.
They are piggybacking off of that as basis for Jack Smiths appointment being constitutional. It isn't, BTW, and when/If heard by the USSC they will more than likely rule this current appointment is not constitutional and required Presidential appointment and Senat confirmation while leaving the previous rulings still valid. The SIGNIFICANT difference is Trump was not a sitting President when Jackass was appointed by AG Garland. The other times were sitting Presidents.
I could be way off but my logic seems solid.
Also, I'm not hating on you, and like your often contrarian takes. But I do believe you have missed the mark on this topic.
Well, I'm not a constitutional lawyer but I'm almost certain it's the specific reason why these previous (starting with Nixon) SC's that were appointed by AG and didn't go through the presidential appointment- senate confirmation process and were ruled ok by the USSC. Sitting president isn't going to appoint a SC to investigate himself.
They are piggybacking off of that as basis for Jack Smiths appointment being constitutional. It isn't, BTW, and when/If heard by the USSC they will more than likely rule this current appointment is not constitutional and required Presidential appointment and Senat confirmation while leaving the previous rulings still valid. The SIGNIFICANT difference is Trump was not a sitting President when Jackass was appointed by AG Garland. The other times were sitting Presidents.
I could be way off but my logic seems solid.
Also, I'm not hating on you, and like your often contrarian takes. But I do believe you have missed the mark on this topic.
quote:
quote:
SFP - the examples you have provided are all SC cases vs. a sitting president, correct?
What would be the significance?
Mueller did investigate Trump while Trump was a sitting President, FWIW.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:21 pm to Datbawwwww
quote:
There is a constitutional process to appoint a US attorney
But not AUSAs.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:22 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You're saying SCOTUS does not make its own hires?
Judges? Nope.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:24 pm to spacewrangler
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.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:24 pm to Vacherie Saint
Oh I get it. I was just reiterating the real question! That’s the question that nobody wants to actually answer. The USSC will answer this question very quickly. Probably why they are putting up fences around the court.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:26 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
That Smith was a private citizen tabbed unilaterally by the AG to act as a Special Counsel
What was the difference with Mueller?
IIRC, Mueller was in private practice when he as appointed.
He was unilaterally chosen by the AG's office
Heres i the letter
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
Awesome, which US Attorney or Federal Prosecutor is Smith working under?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
without digging into Mueller, the fact that his appointment wasnt challenged has little to do with its legality. But you know that already.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Manafort, Miller, etc were not sitting Presidents either.
Did these get upheld by the USSC? Seriously, IDK, if so then my apologies.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:32 pm to Vacherie Saint
He was challenged - under a similar argument Meese used in his brief. But the DC Circuit ruled Mueller's appointment was lawful.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:35 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
That's the crux of the theory presented in the OP. That Smith was a private citizen tabbed unilaterally by the AG to act as a Special Counsel - thereby creating a federal "office" and federal officer without congressional approval
As a moral logician - that is the shortest true statement I've read
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:38 pm to Timeoday
quote:
SCOTUS Roberts now has authority to appoint new Judges to SCOTUS under AG Garland rule.
Wow. OP is displaying next level moronism.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
Again, you are missing the point.
“Charged with ensuring “that the laws be faithfully executed,” the 93 United States Attorneys work to enforce federal laws throughout the country. The President appoints a United States Attorney to each of the 94 federal districts (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are separate districts but share a United States Attorney). The United States Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer in their district and is also involved in civil litigation where the United States is a party.”
There are 93 constitutional appointments that have accountability, why do we need “Jack Smith” without oversight from congress?
“Charged with ensuring “that the laws be faithfully executed,” the 93 United States Attorneys work to enforce federal laws throughout the country. The President appoints a United States Attorney to each of the 94 federal districts (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are separate districts but share a United States Attorney). The United States Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer in their district and is also involved in civil litigation where the United States is a party.”
There are 93 constitutional appointments that have accountability, why do we need “Jack Smith” without oversight from congress?
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:51 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
the fact that his appointment wasnt challenged has little to do with its legality.
It was challenged. I literally posted a DC Court of Appeals ruling on this identical argument made based on the same law professors' theory
Here is the case, if you want to actually be educated on the actual law
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:53 pm to spacewrangler
quote:
Did these get upheld by the USSC?
The literal next best thing (DC COA), based on USSC precedent.
Posted on 6/19/24 at 1:54 pm to Datbawwwww
quote:
There are 93 constitutional appointments that have accountability
As I already stated, USAs are a rare case where an inferior office to a Department head (AG, in this case) require appointment/Senate approval.
Smith is not the equivalent of a USA, he's the equivalent of an ASUA, which does not require appointment/Senate approval.
quote:
why do we need “Jack Smith” without oversight from congress?
How many current ASUAS received that Congressional oversight?
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News