re: Thomas to Jack Smith and Garland: You don’t have Authority

But we were told on the highest authority (SFP) that Smiths SC was beyond challenge.
Maybe Thomas can debate sfb.

quote:

---

I think I had an argument with SFP on this exact point recently.

It wasn’t at all clear that the AG can appoint a special prosecutor without authorization from Congress.

Now it’s clear they can’t.

---

If the "Independent Counsel" law had not expired they could have continued because that law did grant powers to the DOJ to do such. But it did expire and calling it a "special prosecutor" or "special counsel" do not erase the appointments clause.

If you distill it down, Thomas is saying to the left your word games don't change Jack shite here.

quote:

---

Unbelievable how close we were to absolute disaster...

No one will ever convince me God himself did not intervene in this country's affairs in 2015/2016

It wasn't God; it was Mitch McConnell, the guy who posters on here say is no different than a Democrat.

---

You can't leave out the whole 2016 election, man. Had HRC won, Garland was a shoe-in.

In fact, the main reason Dems didn't flip the frick out over McConnel was because they were 100% sure it was only a matter of a few months before Garland got in.

Thus, God.

quote:

---

The prior rulings are based in US from Nixon (the one from 1974)

---

I didn't realize Roe and Chevron were still good law.

quote:

---

SlowFlowPro

---

We tried to tell you, you dumb bitch.

In the next episode of your insane saga, you will pretend to be smarter than Clarence Thomas.

And I’d also like to point that Thomas Massie was correct for questioning the Jack Smith appointment, despite your disappointment.

quote:

---

Had HRC won, Garland was a shoe-in.

---

Garland was Obama’s “moderate” compromise candidate.

As bad as he is, had HRC won, it would’ve been somebody one helluva lot more radical than Garland.

Consider this.

The biggest Karen in Congress (Schumer) threatens the Justices, while the hoard releases their addresses on the net. Over Roe v Wade

Now the same Karen throws a fit on the immunity decision.

I would not be surprised to see a Orthodox Special Operations Team ,in beards funny black hats, land and solve one of NYC’s problems.

quote:

---

quote:
Now it’s clear they can’t.

A lone concurrence does not establish this.

This case could go to the court down the road and end up 8-1, with Thomas being the only dissent.

My argument has always been based in actual rulings on this issue. Thomas's concurrence is not a ruling.

---

As I remember your basic argument in the recent thread was basically that appointment of special council has been happening for years. Just because this is something that has been occurring also doesn't establish it as law.
To establish a special council as a matter of law it must be approved by Congress as stated by the Constitution.

I hear what you are saying. But it’s important that you look at the past few weeks of USSC verdicts, after the security fence was put up.there are multiple direct rulings, and some overt guidance for districts courts to follow. Just a few off the top of mind, Chevron, FDA, J-6, UNANIMOUS jury verdicts, on top of the immunity ruling. The third branch of government is pushing back, they are fed up with congress not doing their jobs, and the executive branch overstepping their authority. We are blessed to have three equal powers that govern our society.