Habba channels trump

[Seymour Flops]

"Refused to continue" is a disingenuous, one might say deceitful, way to describe the enforcement of the end of Habba's 120 day stint as acting US Attorney.

Alina Habba successor fired from Justice Department​

Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim, who have been sharply critical of Habba’s tenure as U.S. Attorney and praised Grace’s appointment earlier today, excoriated Bondi’s decision to fire Grace in a joint statement.

“Trump’s Department of Justice is once again criticizing a court that acted within its authority, continuing a pattern of publicly undermining judicial decisions and showing disregard for the rule of law and the separation of powers,” the two senators said. “The firing of a career public servant, lawfully appointed by the court, is another blatant attempt to intimidate anyone that doesn’t agree with them and undermine judicial independence.”

“This Administration may not like the law, but they are not above it,” they continued. “The people of New Jersey deserve a U.S. Attorney who will enforce the law and pursue justice for the people of our state without partisanship or politics.”

Alina Habba successor fired from Justice Department - New Jersey Globe

Desiree Grace has been removed as First Assistant U.S. Attorney after being picked by New Jersey’s federal judges to replace Alina Habba as the state’s

newjerseyglobe.com

The Democrat and "not Democrat" tears over this go great with my coffee this morning.

Lawfare 2.0 keeps failing and y'all keep crying.

 

[Marener]

What law says that, specifically? Quote the exact part that forbids an acting to serve more than one 120 day term, don't just post a link.

It’s pretty obvious that’s the intent of the law. What else would be the purpose of a 120 day limit? If you can just keep reappointing the same person, there’s no need to ever have a senate confirmation.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It’s pretty obvious that’s the intent of the law.

Ha ha!

No, no, no, Marener.

Judges, and likely the Supreme Court determine the "intent of the law" and whether it should be applied instead of the letter of the law.

Judges, not rando internet posters.

What else would be the purpose of a 120 day limit? If you can just keep reappointing the same person, there’s no need to ever have a senate confirmation.

It is not a 120 day "limit." It is 120 days and then the judges can allow it to continue. So, what is the point of the 120 day limit if the judges can just allow them to continue? That would also mean you would never have to have a Senate confirmation. Maybe you want to argue that the Vacancies Act violates the Constitution? Could be a valid argument.

As long as there are DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents in the state of New Jersey, someone will be leading them. The president will decide who that someone is, whether the Senate approves or judges agree or not. That's just a fact of nature that an organization will have a leader, and if that organization is subordate to a larger organization, the leader of the larger organization will pick the leader of the smaller.

Call that person the "Acting US Attorney," the "Temporary US Attorney," or the "Interim Administrator of the US Attorney's Office," or whatever. There will be such a person, and until you guys learn to shoot straight, that person will be selected by Donald Trump, regardless of whether it pleases some obscure judges in that state.

Lawfare 2.0, which is activist judges trying to stop Trump from exercising the power of the presidency, has been a collosal flop. Time for Democrats and "not Democrats" to try something new. Have you considered adopting positions that are not odious and insane to the vast majority of voters?

 

[Marener]

It is not a 120 day "limit." It is 120 days and then the judges can allow it to continue

The judge didn’t allow it to continue. What’s the point of having a judge decide whether it should continue if the president can just ignore that decision and reappoint the person the judge wouldn’t allow to continue?

As long as there are DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents in the state of New Jersey, someone will be leading them. The president will decide who that someone is, whether the Senate approves or judges agree or not.

So basically the appointments clause in the constitution is meaningless since the president can install a US attorney indefinitely with no senate confirmation.

That’s what you’re saying.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The judge didn’t allow it to continue. What’s the point of having a judge decide whether it should continue if the president can just ignore that decision and reappoint the person the judge wouldn’t allow to continue?

I don't know, you tell me. You seem to think it is a very important law, whose intent you intuit and expect the president to follow.

What is the point?

The president did not "ignore" that decision. He reacted to it as he saw fit. That you don't like what he did in the aftermath of the judges' decision doesn't mean that he ignored it.

So basically the appointments clause in the constitution is meaningless since the president can install a US attorney indefinitely with no senate confirmation.

That’s what you’re saying.

Not at all. Alina Habba is not the US Attorney for New Jersey and never has been. She was the Acting US Attorney, and now will serve in another role in which she will oversee the DOJ Prosecutors and the FBI Field Offices in the State of New Jersey. New Jersey will not have a US Attorney, or Acting but someone has to oversee Federal Law enforcement in that state.

Since the founders, everyone has always known that every appointee would not be confirmed immediately, and some not at all. Doesn't mean we shut down the government until every appointment is nominated and confirmed. Someone will always be in charge of every unit of government.

Do you want to leave them leaderless?

What you need to work on personally is getting over this idea that as soon as a judge - any judge anywhere - expresses disagreement with what Trump was elected to do, Trump has some kind of moral obligation to follow that judge's intent rather than the law, the will of the voters, or his own presidential judgement. No other president ever did that, why would Trump?

 

[Marener]

What is the point?

To prevent the president from avoiding senate confirmation.

Alina Habba is not the US Attorney for New Jersey and never has been. She was the Acting US Attorney, and now will serve in another role in which she will oversee the DOJ Prosecutors and the FBI Field Offices in the State of New Jersey. New Jersey will not have a US Attorney, or Acting but someone has to oversee Federal Law enforcement in that state.

Habba says she’s acting US attorney.



You’re going to need to invent a new story.

Since the founders, everyone has always known that every appointee would not be confirmed immediately, and some not at all. Doesn't mean we shut down the government until every appointment is nominated and confirmed. Someone will always be in charge of every unit of government.

The district court appointed a highly qualified acting US attorney to serve until someone is confirmed by the Senate.

Do you want to leave them leaderless?

They had a leader that Trump fired.

 

[struth]

Since you think he can keep reappointing the same acting US attorney, then they're permanent as well.

So why would he bother with the confirmation process?

No they aren’t, as you highlighted he has to reappoint them

Why has he? He has

 

[berg80]

The Democrat and "not Democrat" tears over this go great with my coffee this morning.

Lawfare 2.0 keeps failing and y'all keep crying.

More word salad in response to one of the more transparent circumventions of protocols, and law, in naming a US Attorney that's ever happened.

 

[Seymour Flops]

To prevent the president from avoiding senate confirmation.

The law allows a president to nominate an "acting" US Attorney to avoid Senate confirmation.

Funny way of preventing it.

Habba says she’s acting US attorney.



You’re going to need to invent a new story.

Yes, she is Acting United States Attorney for the state of New Jersey. Doesn't change anything I said.

The district court appointed a highly qualified acting US attorney to serve until someone is confirmed by the Senate.

They had a leader that Trump fired.

As is his prerogative.

Why do you believe only the courts should exercise their powers, while the president waits for the go-ahead from the courts to exercise presidential powers?

 

[Seymour Flops]

More word salad in response to one of the more transparent circumventions of protocols, and law, in naming a US Attorney that's ever happened.

Circumvent =/= violate or ignore.

The "work-around" is a great American tradition.

 

[Marener]

No they aren’t, as you highlighted he has to reappoint them

Why has he? He has

If all he has to do is reappoint them, then he can successfully have an acting US attorney with all the authority of an actual US attorney without ever being confirmed by the Senate.

 

[struth]

If all he has to do is reappoint them, then he can successfully have an acting US attorney with all the authority of an actual US attorney without ever being confirmed by the Senate.

Yeah but who wants to do that? He had appointed US attorneys all over the country. He only seems to have issues with two states

 

[Marener]

Yeah but who wants to do that?

A president who wants someone in that position that can’t get confirmed in the Senate.

 

[Marener]

Why do you believe only the courts should exercise their powers, while the president waits for the go-ahead from the courts to exercise presidential powers?

I just don’t think presidents should be able to avoid senate confirmation. I think the constitution actually means something.

 

[berg80]

The "work-around" is a great American tradition.

Obfuscation is a great tradition among trump cultists.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I just don’t think presidents should be able to avoid senate confirmation. I think the constitution actually means something.

So you opposed the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, signed into law by Bill Clinton?

I could search your postings and find where you objected to Joe Biden appointing acting US Attorneys?

Or is this more, "everything Trump does is wrong! Ever-thang!"

​

 

[Marener]

So you opposed the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, signed into law by Bill Clinton?

I could search your postings and find where you objected to Joe Biden appointing acting US Attorneys?

Or is this more, "everything Trump does is wrong! Ever-thang!"

​

Tell me when any other president thought or attempted to reappoint an acting US attorney once the court said their term would not continue.

 

[struth]

A president who wants someone in that position that can’t get confirmed in the Senate.

Yeah he’d rather have that pedos in in the position as US attorney.

But you are right he’s once again outsmarted the obstructionist in the 19 percenter party of Demafacist by using one of their own laws!!

Brilliant

 

[Seymour Flops]

Tell me when any other president thought or attempted to reappoint an acting US attorney once the court said their term would not continue.

First time for everything.

I don't know that a court ever said a term would not continue under any other president. Why would a court have tried to fire a presidential appointee? Unless that president is Trump, of course. Then judges can do anything!

This interference with the President by low-level judges is unprecedented.

 

[Marener]

Yeah he’d rather have that pedos in in the position as US attorney.

But you are right he’s once again outsmarted the obstructionist in the 19 percenter party of Demafacist by using one of their own laws!!

Brilliant

Again, you think the president can keep someone in the position of acting US attorney for four years without ever having to have them confirmed by the senate.

Is that right?