Nope!
Trump classified documents case dismissed. Jack Smith loses again.
- Thread starter Nostra
- Start date
take it up with the legal experts....a judge and justice disagree with you
Congress gave attorney generals the power to hire prosecutors to work for him whenever he needs, without additional Senate approval.
The law has already given permission.
And a thousand and one other legal eagles disagree with the two.
hahah that's not true, all US Attorneys have to get confirmed. You are wrong.
who?
The Appointments Clause requires that Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.1 The Supreme Court has interpreted these requirements as distinguishing between two types of officers: (1) principal officers who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to their position, and (2) inferior officers, whose appointment Congress may place with the President, judiciary, or department heads.2 These constitutional provisions are instrumental in ensuring the separation of powers, as the Framers of the Constitution deliberately separated Congress’s power to create offices in the federal government from the President’s authority to nominate officers to fill those positions.3 At the same time, placing the power to appoint principal officers with the President alone ensures a measure of accountability for his choices in staffing important government positions.
Special prosecutors, special councils, independent prosecutors etc ....hired on a temporary basis, have been considered inferior officers....not principle officers in the President's Administration for 4 years.... that reflect the President's policies.
MagicMike
Platinum Member
Stay away from the butt play talk in the future ok?
This is not a dating site. They are not hard to find though if you want to talk about shoving things up each other's asses.
To each his own.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,755
- 38,784
- 3,645
Appointments clause doesn't require that.
Nor does it require it for inferior officers, such as temporary special prosecutors, special counsels, independent counsels or whatever you want to call them.... they have been considered over our decades, as inferior officers when appointed temporarily by a department head, not a principle officer.
It says under the appointment clause, inferior officers can be a presidential appointment or a department head appointment, or a court appointments for civil or criminal cases such as an independent magistrate...
There is a Special Council office within the administration with a principle officer position for this permanent office....its function is different than when a special prosecutor etc. is temporarily hired to have some independence from the administration and DOJ....
I think the argument of inferior officer vs. principle officer on this is simply a delay tactic, likely with no legs... But that's just my opinion, not necessarily fact, or non factual, as of yet.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/
The Appointments Clause requires that Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.1 The Supreme Court has interpreted these requirements as distinguishing between two types of officers: (1) principal officers who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to their position, and (2) inferior officers, whose appointment Congress may place with the President, judiciary, or department heads.2 These constitutional provisions are instrumental in ensuring the separation of powers, as the Framers of the Constitution deliberately separated Congress’s power to create offices in the federal government from the President’s authority to nominate officers to fill those positions.3 At the same time, placing the power to appoint principal officers with the President alone ensures a measure of accountability for his choices in staffing important government positions.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,755
- 38,784
- 3,645
So why do US Attorneys require appointment and confirmation? Are they inferior officers? Garland gave Smith every power of a US Attorney, arguably more. Strongest argument that special counsels require appointment and Senate confirmation. Check and balance that an administration doesn't hire a hyperpartisan asshole like SMith.
It seems counter intuitive to require a Special Counsel temporarily hired to independently investigate a president be appointed by that president, and approved by the Senate as a full time appointment position in the administration and under only the President's control....
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,755
- 38,784
- 3,645
Checking on this. I haen't read the whole opinion yet
US attorneys do, but NOT all U.S. Prosecutors...Jack Smith was a U.S. Prosecutor previously, and not appointed, as with other US Prosecutors
Last edited:
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,755
- 38,784
- 3,645
But they don't count, do they?
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,755
- 38,784
- 3,645
It's the "independent" aspect that cautions more towards COngressional oversight.
Neither does the judge nor Thomas, who had no other Justices concurring with his opinion.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,755
- 38,784
- 3,645
?? Judge Cannon dismissed the case. It's dead. If Garland chooses to appeal, it may get to the SC and Thomas' opinion will certainly count.
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Crime in DC has plummetted since Jan 2025, murder down 68%.- Started by ColonelAngus
- Replies: 6
-
