Jump to content

Tracking Trump Administration and Cabinet picks

PenelopeWitherspoon

By PenelopeWitherspoon
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31512

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Thanks. So, Cannon ruled that Nixon was right, and the court wrong, and Cato agreed? Or, Nixon was agreeing that special counsel appointments are valid?

No, she dismissed that part of the Nixon holding as not essential and therefore of no precedential value. Part of the problem is that Nixon the litigant didn't raise the issue of the validity of the appointment, just whether the counsel had certain powers. 

The Cato article didn't agree or disagree with the decision it just analyzed it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

956 Worldwide
956 Worldwide

Incidentally, “recess appointments” are what Matt Gaetz calls his dates. 

Radical Larry
Radical Larry

Gaetz thought he’d be working with JV Dance and bailed when he found out it was JD Vance. 

Ghost of LL
Ghost of LL

I genuinely don't understand why you post here. Literally everyone here thinks you're of significantly below-average intelligence.  Even the people who agree with your positions on a topic sigh a

Posted Images

Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 8040

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, she dismissed that part of the Nixon holding as not essential and therefore of no precedential value. Part of the problem is that Nixon the litigant didn't raise the issue of the validity of the appointment, just whether the counsel had certain powers. 

The Cato article didn't agree or disagree with the decision it just analyzed it. 

So, did Cannon decide that everyone who had dealt with these special prosecutors was clueless on what mattered? Did Cannon discover that none of them were empaneled legally, since the statute mentions officers, and not officials?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31512

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

So, did Cannon decide that everyone who had dealt with these special prosecutors was clueless on what mattered? Did Cannon discover that none of them were empaneled legally, since the statute mentions officers, and not officials?

No.  It is implicit in her holding that all special counsel appointed since the Ethics In Government Act expired in 1999 were appointed invalidly, as well as any appointed before that Act in 1979.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31512

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

OK. I think I understand. Thanks.

The Ethics in Government Act was the only Congressional legislation (redundant) that provided for special counsel, called under the statute "independent counsel."  It was a complex scheme, but, given that it was legislation, there was no question that it complied with the Constitution, especially after Morrison v. Olson, which specifically so held.

Every special counsel appointed before or after that relied on the express and inherent powers of the Attorney General, which Cannon found were lacking, unlike every other court that has ever considered it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 8040

Posted
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Ethics in Government Act was the only Congressional legislation (redundant) that provided for special counsel, called under the statute "independent counsel."  It was a complex scheme, but, given that it was legislation, there was no question that it complied with the Constitution, especially after Morrison v. Olson, which specifically so held.

Every special counsel appointed before or after that relied on the express and inherent powers of the Attorney General, which Cannon found were lacking, unlike every other court that has ever considered it.

Again, thanks. Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems as though “Yeah, except for those prosecutors appointed under the Ethics in Government Act,” could have also served in answering my last post.

Enlightened by your posts, I reread the Cato analysis. Cannon had four statutes to consider, which were cited by Garland in appointing Smith. One she did, indeed, reject by arguing the statute clearly applied to the FBI, given the distinction between officers and officials. Another she dismissed due to her belief that the phrase “attorney specially retained”, meant only attorneys that were already employed. Because “retained” was used in its past tense. As if hiring someone for a purpose is best expressed “attorney specially retain.” And for another, she proclaimed that “prosecute,” in 1966, actually was meant to convey a narrower definition of the word “prosecute.” She is arguing that, in ‘66, “prosecute” meant to help further a prosecution, and not to actually, you know, prosecute.


 

TL/dr Absent further information, I disagree that the Cato analysis was anything other than bullshit.

 

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34738

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Screenshot_20241123_191050_Chrome.thumb.jpg.bc0634f82247e6f42d4d77cddb8690ff.jpg

It is darkly funny that some think-tankers wrote a Serious Lawyer Analysis of Cannon’s decision as if it were something other than post hoc gobbledygook seeking to justify a pre-determined outcome.  
 

There’s a whole industry around this.  The right shits the bed and they launder the sheets down to a sickly all-over beige and tell everyone it’s normal. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31512

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Again, thanks. Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems as though “Yeah, except for those prosecutors appointed under the Ethics in Government Act,” could have also served in answering my last post.

Enlightened by your posts, I reread the Cato analysis. Cannon had four statutes to consider, which were cited by Garland in appointing Smith. One she did, indeed, reject by arguing the statute clearly applied to the FBI, given the distinction between officers and officials. Another she dismissed due to her belief that the phrase “attorney specially retained”, meant only attorneys that were already employed. Because “retained” was used in its past tense. As if hiring someone for a purpose is best expressed “attorney specially retain.” And for another, she proclaimed that “prosecute,” in 1966, actually was meant to convey a narrower definition of the word “prosecute.” She is arguing that, in ‘66, “prosecute” meant to help further a prosecution, and not to actually, you know, prosecute.


 

TL/dr Absent further information, I disagree that the Cato analysis was anything other than bullshit.

 

Well, to me, they just reported on her analysis, gave the pros and cons of it and kind of left it alone beyond that.  For example, this:

Which side is right? In my view, this is a genuinely close question. First, Judge Cannon may well have put too much weight on the distinction between the words “officer” and “official,” given that the government has identified other statutes in which Congress appears to have granted the authority to appoint “officials” who are officers in the constitutional sense.

I think you're conflating her bullshit with Cato's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34738

Posted
Posted
On 11/23/2024 at 12:16 PM, Hank Kingsley said:

Find yourself a woman that's as patient, forgiving, and optimistic as Anastasis is about Trump's administration. 

 

“These burger patties are only 15-20 percent human feces, the rest is prime brisket and sirloin trimmings.”

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26510

Posted
Posted

 

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, to me, they just reported on her analysis, gave the pros and cons of it and kind of left it alone beyond that.  For example, this:

Which side is right? In my view, this is a genuinely close question. First, Judge Cannon may well have put too much weight on the distinction between the words “officer” and “official,” given that the government has identified other statutes in which Congress appears to have granted the authority to appoint “officials” who are officers in the constitutional sense.

I think you're conflating her bullshit with Cato's.

Cato and FedSoc: originalist except when textualism is more convenient except when they are making stuff up if they have to. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3308

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

And yet she apparently is not passing the Q purity test of never supporting Covid vaccines, so they're crying about that.  (Plus, she's a woman so ... you know...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105180

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Smart, thoughtful, compassionate and a nice person are usually automatic disqualifiers for Repubs. 

Maybe they can make up some stories about marital infidelity or her molesting some kids to bolster her Republican bona fides?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26510

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

Alexander Hamilton grew up in the Caribbean ya stupid sip

How does a bastard, orphan son of a whore and a Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a forgotten spot in the Caribbean by providence, impoverished in squalor, grow up to be a hero and a scholar?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...