Posted on 11/14/2018 7:34:51 AM PST by CaptainK
What does the judge in Hawaii say about this.
Never get there. The communists Democrats will dump on Trump so hard he will cave. America is lost.
Let’s hope so. It’s time to get down to business. They can go to hell.
You’re right. It’s time to get down to business. They can go to hell.
I would agree with that, but only as long as Whitaker's functions are entirely administrative in nature. The moment he gets involved in a matter that requires the U.S. Attorney General to sign off on it by law, he's going to have a problem.
A Federal criminal prosecution in a death penalty case, for example, requires the approval of the U.S. Attorney General. If Whitaker were to sign off on one of those, the defendant in the case would absolutely win an appeal based on the unconstitutional appointment of Whitaker.
This is why I suspect Whitaker will do nothing in any "official" capacity as the AG.
Of course. Along with Trump scratches his ass in public. Impeach him! and Red neckties are unconstitutional! and Waaaaaah!
Farther down in the story it mentions the Dems wanting Whitaker to recuse himself because he worked for Sam Clovis in 2014, and Clovis went on to briefly work for the Trump Campaign and testified in the Mueller investigation in 2017. But of course, no Dems are condemning Jeannie Rhee's working for the Special Counsel.
They’ll say the Act itself is unconditional as applied in this instance.
Correct. The “necessary and proper” clause is the deciding factor here.
Can the vile RATS be any more reprehensible? Next, they’ll be demanding Trump get their signed permission every time he goes to the bathroom.
Because they are lawyers and lawyers control America through words they can manipulate. Time for a Revolution!
“P.S. — The Supreme Court ruling against a similar appointment by Obama in that NLRB case was a 7-2 decision.”
I’m willing to see if the Vacancies Act will decide the outcome differently and besides by the time there is a decision, many documents will be released as Congress has requested.
Let’s go! :)
Nowhere in the constitution does it require Senate vote.
In fact, for years there was no Senate floor vote on nominees.
B.S!! Every "Gun Control" legislation ever enacted violates our Constitution. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
There is no reason that DOJ rules of succession would take precedence over Congressional legislation creating actual, legislated, rules of succession.
Are you going to suggest that the Senate is not required to vote on presidential nominees to judicial posts, ambassadorships and cabinet posts? Can you cite any evidence for that?
You will lose this argument, for a host of reasons. For one, it has already been decided, against you. Presidential temporary appointments under the subject law have been upheld. Doesn’t matter WHAT the caretaker does; only that someone has to be in charge, and that person is. That person has to have been already approved by the Senate for that agency, and the length of time of the appointment is limited. Seems a very reasonable method of allowing a succession to take place in case of resignation, firing, death, etc. Congress takes months to confirm a successor; a system is needed. Next man up is not necessarily the best way to do it. Luckily, Congress passed a reasonable solution.
That's a valid point, and I've said many times that the DOJ rules of succession are arbitrary in nature and subject to change at the discretion of the President anyway (he's done it twice since he was inaugurated in January 2017). But there are no "rules of succession" created by Congress in this case. The Federal Vacancies act outlines temporary appointments the President MAY make -- which clearly indicates that he is also free to leave offices vacant if he wishes.
Also -- Keep in mind that the conflict between the Federal Vacancies Act and the U.S. Constitution only exists for "principal officers" under the Appointments Clause. If Whitaker had been appointed to a post like acting Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Please cite any evidence you have for that. I've been citing a 2017 Supreme Court decision where what you've said is absolutely NOT true -- by a 7-2 margin in the NLRB case.
Remember -- You have to cite a case where a temporary appointment of a "principal officer" (as opposed to an "inferior officer") was upheld. I'll bet you can't find one.
They are obviously informed of the 1998 law of vacancies where the president has every right to appoint whoever he wants to a temporary position without confirmation. The nasty people on the left just wanted Rosenstein. And throwing yet another tantrum over it
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.