You linked an article that proved your claim was wrong. It said she “suggested” he was a principle officer. If she ruled that, they wouldn’t say suggested. You should go to the actual case anyway.
That’s how precedent works.
Is Bondi unaware of the ruling or is Trump unaware of Bondi’s illegal actions? It doesn’t change anything.
It wasn’t part of the reasoning. She left that to superior courts if necessary. She made no determination one way or another.
So you are saying Jack Smith was illegally appointed by Merritless Gestapoland.
Typical Democrat beating a horse to death! Poor moroner, next up is but Jan 6!
apnews.com
Agreed. Because the AG has no legal authority to appoint inferior officers. Therefore, he could only be a superior officer.
Glad you agree Jack Smith was illegally appointed by Merritless Gestapoland.
Thats not what the cotus says
I think youre misunderstand what Cannon said.
I’m the only one here that actually read the decision. You keep posting articles that prove your own point incorrect.
Because every judge rules on their own interpretation of the law. Liberal judges will tend to see the law one way or another and conservative judges see it another. Many judges and constitutional lawyers believe that Cannon’s ruling is unconstitutional based on the laws Congress set forth to appoint special prosecutors. Since there has been no appeal, her ruling in that case stands. Another judge could see it differently.
So there’s no actual rules. It’s all just judicial Calvin ball.
There are rules and precedents, the precedent was that these types of special prosecutors had constitutional authority as inferior officers. What the lawyers argued with Cannon was that Smith was given primary authority and she didn’t decide on that but decided that he had neither inferior or primary authority. There are previous rulings on this matter. So when a special prosecutor is appointed it will be challenged in the courts and it will be decided whether it’s constitutional or not, on a case by case basis.
None of your articles say she made a finding that he’s a superior officer.
From the actual decision:
What did you truncate? "Of course, however..."
It goes on to say that if the appeals court disagrees with her view on the statutory language for appointing an inferior officer, it could still be overturned if the court determines he was a principal officer, which is obvious.
