Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

Tracking Trump Administration and Cabinet picks

PenelopeWitherspoon

By PenelopeWitherspoon
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31545

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 1.5k
  • 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 8051

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 31545

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 31545

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 8051

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 34794

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

TwiceHorn 31545

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
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26578

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 4
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13528

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Hermanator said:

 

il_fullxfull.877900359_5if3.jpg

 

1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Not a big fan of class shaming. Current docs parents were both doctors. Trumps picks father died in accident and mother was working multiple jobs to keep her family afloat. She went ROTC route and then "cheaper" medical school. The horror.

Possibly she’s not a world class doctor in terms of straight As and getting into a top notch school. But by all accounts she’s a qualified family medicine doctor. She just looks like she prioritized being a media doctor in addition to her practice. Some doctors also minimize their practice to go into business or practice/hospital leadership.

we have a problem with US based med schools not producing enough doctors so we have to look outside for doctors. That alone doesn’t make them incompetent  

besides the surgeon general’s job is about communication. From a few clips that I’ve seen I haven’t noticed her telling Covid patients to drink bleach. She does seem to be critical of some Covid measures like extended quarantine periods for people exposed but she was also pro vax which is partially surprising for a Fox News correspondent. I’m sure Fox producers downplayed her vax opinions on air.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hermanator

Hermanator 7178

Posted
Posted

I don't know anything about her. Just the University reminded me of Jimmy McGill. If she isn't a complete lunatic he'll bent on raping Americans for her own financial profit then she'll be one of the only ones in that administration. 

Probably trump doesn't know that though. Or just doesn't care about a position that has no bearing on his ability to take over the government 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31545

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Not a big fan of class shaming. Current docs parents were both doctors. Trumps picks father died in accident and mother was working multiple jobs to keep her family afloat. She went ROTC route and then "cheaper" medical school. The horror.

Not sure that's really cheaper.  Think that's probably an issue of grades and MCAT scores.  Usually is.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29420

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not sure that's really cheaper.  Think that's probably an issue of grades and MCAT scores.  Usually is.

 

Who gives a shit? We're talking about the surgeon general here, they don't do anything. She's far and away his least offensive pick so far.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 12102

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Who gives a shit? We're talking about the surgeon general here, they don't do anything. She's far and away his least offensive pick so far.

Her brother in law is (was?) the lead singer of Creed. Yeah, her sister and former Miss NY is married to Scott Stapp

I find that incredibly offensive.

  • Haha 7
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...