Posted on 11/09/2018 3:16:02 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Judge Napolitano says Trump's acting AG isn't qualified for role.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
The statue stands. Fight that battle your own way. At least Trump used legal means instead of usurping the law as his predecessor did. There are infinitely bigger unconstitutional issues to deal with that a successor statute that proscribes a mandatory sunset for an interim appointment.
Your energy may be better spent railing against “birthright citizenship” than an infinitely minuscule self correcting issue. While I wholeheartedly agree we should not allow unconstitutional statutes go unchallenged, my philosophy requires me to approach large issues first and many times the small one are taken care of in the matter of that course.
Oh boy, a Sessions shill. Were you in Times Square with your pussy hat protesting his firing last night?
The Obama/NLRB case that I've cited here was a prominent one that got a lot of attention here on FreeRepublic. It ended up going to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Obama lost. The concurring opinion Clarence Thomas wrote in that 2017 case supports everything I'm posting here about Whitaker.
I don't give a sh!t if Whitaker stays in that post for the next ten years, as long as he doesn't sign off on any official documents. Basically, the U.S. will be functioning without an Attorney General.
Apples and oranges. This is not a recess appointment. As “acting” he has all the powers of the AG
“A plain reading of the U.S. Constitution tells me that the statute on that particular point is flat-out unconstitutional.”
If Trump made him “Attorney General,” you would be correct. But “Acting Attorney General” is NOT “Attorney General.” Not legally. He is temporarily assuming most (but not all!) powers (such as, signing FISA warrents. No can do).
Perfectly legal. And....done deal!
And dems know this (appointment perfectly legal), which is why they are pushing for “recusal,” rather than illegal. Though some communist front groups will surely try anyway.
Even though the NLRB case involved an alleged "recess appointment," I'm guessing the Obama administration cited the Vacancies Act in their legal arguments. Otherwise, there would be no reason for Thomas to cite it in his opinion.
Proved that this morning on Fox and Friends First. The girlie man host had a guest talking about 90% of asylum seekers not showing up for their hearings. Right after he got off the air, girlie man said he had heard that over 50% did show up, so he would withhold judgement. I live in deep south Texas, and the ICE people say nearly all go immediately to other areas. Get stolen SS and other documents. Feds need to start investigating all the illegals using stolen documents, prosecute, and deport them.
Get real. LOL.
There is no distinction between an "acting" and a "real" Presidential appointee under the U.S. Constitution.
..informed as Juan Williams’...
That’s “Lil Juanito” here on FR....
Right. Keep in mind that the Democrats can’t fight the appointment on legal grounds because so many of them — including both Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi — voted for the Federal Vacancies Act that is the basis of the President’s authority to appoint Whitaker.
He's there to: (1) cut Rosenstein out of the loop; (2) gain access to information that has been deliberately been withheld from Congress for months, and (3) advise President Trump on executive orders that relate to DOJ matters.
At this point, what is important is that he gets in and immediately complies with ALL outstanding congressional subpoenas. The Deep State bottleneck needs to be broken open. Even if he is eventually removed, the paperwork will stay distributed - toothpaste from the tube.
Judge Nappy is losing it.
That is exactly what I had in mind in Post #41. Whitaker does not have to be a legitimate U.S. Attorney General (from a constitutional standpoint, not under the Federal Vacancies Act) to comply with a subpoena.
What the hell did he say about Loretta Lynch? Eric Holder? Janet El Reno? Robert Kennedy (age 35)?
And suddenly after 100 years it is an issue.
Because Trump.
Perhaps the nappy ho should pull the other one. It has bells on it.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/andrew-napolitano-supreme-court-shortlist-trump-236488
I don't trust his opinions.
Judge Napolitano isn’t qualified for any role.
Well, no.
The Federal Vacancies Act was passed in 1998-99. Some of the key administrative items -- such as a published succession plan for each Federal department -- weren't implemented for several years until 9/11 added some urgency to the matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.