It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Trump could face legal challenges over Whitaker

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

That's all I'm doing I'm not saying what I believe; I'm not a lawyer

These cats can't get their heads outside of political debate for a second. They see it even when it isn't there




posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
You guys are utter morons

It a FACT that if Trump tries to make him a permanent AG there will be legal challenges

That's not my doing

When are you dudes going to EVER grow up

You lost yesterday BADLY accept it



He won't ever be the permanent AG. He can't be and be the temp acting AG because he unequivocally does not qualify to be both. The question is whether the VRA act gives additional grants additional authority to the chief executive that supercedes the much earlier AG succession law. There is a good chance the court rules it does not. But it won't make a feather or fig's difference to Whitaker because he's likely done with his 210 day (or less) term by then.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Thank you. I do political threads but this one I'm trying to just discuss the political situation.


The argument is whether The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 Trumps( no pun intended) the constitution.

That would likely be decided by the SCOTUS.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

You know that Kelly Anne's Husband is part of the controlled opposition right?

💥🎃💥



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
You guys are utter morons

It a FACT that if Trump tries to make him a permanent AG there will be legal challenges

That's not my doing

When are you dudes going to EVER grow up

You lost yesterday BADLY accept it

No one has even slightly hinted at him becoming permanent AG. Well, except liberal loons that is. If Trump were to try to appoint him to a permanent position, he would have to be removed from the temp position, Rosenstein would then step in as acting AG until the senate were to confirm him, at which point he would become the permanent AG.

Trump has full legal authority to appoint a temporary acting AG until a permanent selection is decided upon and confirmed by the senate, or 210 days has elapsed. Actually, from what I've read, it will be 280 days, since the 210 days doesn't start until 90 days after the vacancy was created.

So yes, IF trump were to appoint him as temp AG then try to make him the permanent select, that would be illegal, but since that isn't the case all we have is a bunch of liberals crying foul over nothing.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: RadioRobert

Thank you. I do political threads but this one I'm trying to just discuss the political situation.


The argument is whether The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 Trumps( no pun intended) the constitution.

That would likely be decided by the SCOTUS.


Eh, it's a question of whether a nomination as a power granted by VRA is still bound to the AG succession law of 1953. It's not at all clear.
So does the VRA which clearly grants this power for appointment give additional authority and context (or legally "inform") to the earlier AG powers, or does the AG list inform the VRA, and therefore, the appointment authority in the case of AG cannot conflict with the succession.

Could go either way. I tend to think because it is ambiguous that the earlier statute has primacy. But it's not at all cut and dry, and who knows what a bench says. I don't think it will have any impact on Whitaker. It's mostly theatre.
edit on 8-11-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
You guys are utter morons


Winning hearts and minds, I see.

Beer on sale tonight?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Typically legally speaking, recent legislation supersedes prior legislation. Not always the case, but it usually is.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Trump may very well want him in as permanent. How do you know he doesn’t?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell




You guys are utter morons


Why will, why?

You were just in your other thread extolling your virtues for all to see! Now I'm sad.


Stay class Willy.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Nothing indicates it at this point. Trump himself has stated he's a temporary appointment, so that's what I read into. If he hints otherwise, I'll change my views on the subject.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Here’s how this works.


A challenge to Trump's appointment goes to court based on the constitution. Those other laws may be on the books but when the SCOTUS or a lower court judge them against the constitution and decided THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL then those laws get thrown out, along with Trump's AG.

If they decide the laws are within the constitutional guidelines then they remain or get amended a bit.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

So I take it with all the bitching you are doing about this “temporary” AG appointment, you must have liked Sessions in there eh?
Because from all accounts, he sure turned a blind eye to a lot of Leftist shenanigans.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Which scotus is that exactly?
The one missing rbg?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Were not disputing Trump's action. His actions were done in good faith as his lawyers view the present law (which has never been tested). We're considering the possibility his decision may be challenged on a constitutional basis ( NOT A CRIMINAL BASIS) in court and then IF YOU READ THE OP you’d see the parameters of what they’ll decide the case on. It’s a very simple one.
edit on 8-11-2018 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Here’s how this works.


A challenge to Trump's appointment goes to court based on the constitution. Those other laws may be on the books but when the SCOTUS or a lower court judge them against the constitution and decided THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL then those laws get thrown out, along with Trump's AG.

If they decide the laws are within the constitutional guidelines then they remain or get amended a bit.


Wrong, he isn't a permanent selection, therefore not needing the advice and consent of congress. THAT is the constitutional part. If he were a permanent selection, you would be correct.

You first must realize he is a TEMPORARY selection to fully grasp the concept.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

We're talking about the constitution that says unequivocally any AG has to be appointed by advice and consent of the Senate.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Willtell

Nothing indicates it at this point. Trump himself has stated he's a temporary appointment, so that's what I read into. If he hints otherwise, I'll change my views on the subject.


President Trump told HHS to make "Temporary" health insurance plans last 3 years, instead of the 3 month limit that Obama put on them. Sooooo… "Temporary" could be a long time for Whitaker. Especially if he shows BALLS and LOYALTY.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Eh, it's not really nothing. It's sort of an interesting case where one law gives blanket authority, but where an earlier law restricts it. It's never been applicable before, so there is no precedent.

If there is a law that says "Government vehicles can park anywhere" and another says "Only vehicles with handicap plates can park in designated spaces" and neither references the other, which statute has primacy or supersedes the other? If someone asks the court to stop government vehicles from parking in handicapped spaces, the court has to decide which is applicable in this specific case. The law says both are correct; they are both acting in good faith. They need a judge to interpret primacy. And if the law is not changed, then it may come up again, and another court has to decide whether to go with precedent or overturn it.


edit on 8-11-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

So why hasn't any dem brought a suit?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join