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: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: RadioRobert

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


"Usually" laws that would conflict are sufficiently explained in context of one another within the text of newest legislation . That's not at all the case here.

So this is pretty unusual. Like I said, it's not clear. It happens when laws are poorly written.




posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

www.nytimes.com...

You’re totally wrong.

If you want to see how wrong you are just go to this link and read some of it.


You’ll find out that Clarence Thomas himself agrees that the constitution Trumps these other laws.

It has nothing to do with temporary appointments allowing him to make him AG.




If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice. Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground. Justice Thomas agreed with the judgment, but wrote separately to emphasize that even if the statute had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

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.


Grossly not applicable because the same act that grants (apparently) this power clearly restricts the length of his tenure.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Willtell

So why hasn't any dem brought a suit?


It has to be someone in standing. And he hasn't taken the oath yet, so there is no standing. As soon as he does, a Senator or group thereof will challenge it. Interestingly, Senate recesses tomorrow afternoon, so it adds another wrinkle to whether this becomes a recess appointment that moots a lot of the arguing. They'll still file for political theater's sake.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Imo as long as it is" temporary" they dont have a leg to stand on.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:01 PM
link   
The Constitution Trumps these little meager laws

Read Clarence Thomas’ statements about the Appointments Clause of the constitution. It transcends these other laws. It's there for a reason. A president can temporarily appoint an AG just to get something done. That’s why the constitution has the Appointments Clause to transcend these other laws. ANd when found that they do contradict they are stricken.

An AG has to be appointed by the advice and consent of the Senate

PERIOD!

Forget temporary, once in a while, a few days all BS
The constitution rules the day and night



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

IMO it's similar to the 2nd amendment, and states imposition of gun restrictions. The 2nd was never amended to change the words "shall not be infringed", however there is legislation at the state level that indeed does infringe that right. It had to go to the SCOTUS for an ultimate ruling, which is where this could possibly end up, but with recent written law allowing the POTUS to appoint temporary selections, this would likely end up with a ruling in favor of Trump. The whole premise of the appointment being illegal is based on 2 things, which have been explained by you, me, and several others ad nauseam. Sessions did indeed resign, and the selection is temporary vs permanent. That is literally what they are bringing up, and it's flat out wrong.

I'm done talking with Will, he can't seem to grasp the difference between permanent and temporary, so really there is no point. It's like talking to a brick wall.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Also, not a lateral comparison. Different circumstances, and is an opinion offered vaguely on a question that was not before the court in that case. You can't simply apply it straight across. Thomas also admits in footnotes an earlier conflicting SCOTUS decision in Eaton without explaining why it would not hold (because it wasn't germane to the case). So who knows how this plays out.

I think because the later legislation doesn't address the prior restrictions, the prior restrictions will stand. That isn't clear though. VRA has never been challenged. And temp appointments have a precedent. So they'll have to decide.

It won't matter because Whitaker is done by the time of a ruling, imo.
edit on 8-11-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

You are simply wrong.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Let's say Bill Clinton fires an AG he doesn’t like. Then appoints a temporary one (without Senate approval) who he knows would help him.

The appointments clause is a safeguard against this kind of presidential corruption.

An AG has to serve on the Advice and Consent of the Senate of the US.


And I'm going to add this...

This is an example of the wisdom of our constitution that we all should be proud of

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



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Did you read the link? On what basis am I wrong?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

So, by your logic, how are any laws restricting rights to gun ownership legal and constitutional?

The words "shall not be infringed" are pretty clear, yet there are laws that infringe upon them.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

What is the line of succession for AG?

Pretend you know the state of Rosensteins job.
IMO he is out.
Next in line is ACTING.
Next in line is a group of 15ish in no particular order.

POTUS will get WIDE latitude with his TEMPORARY appointment.

Were this a permanent appointment you MAY have a point.
It is not.
You do not.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Done? But imagine the damage he could in 200 days!

But you’re right it’s not been tested in this circumstance and a SCOTUS may rule one way or another. But I doubt they would approve this 200-day temp AG.

Indeed, while thinking about this I am of the opinion at this point, seeing the wisdom of the appointments clause, that Whittaker will be an illegitimate AG.

An AG has to go through the screening of advice and consent or you’d open up too much leeway to corruption as my above example demonstrates.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Nah, AAG Whitaker is gonna be one heckuva ride I do believe. I've been giving him a pretty hard look today and I'm liking what I see. Here's a couple of articles I found interesting.


Acting AG Whitaker, Mueller’s Investigation, and the Rosenstein Memo

A New Attorney General for a New Phase of the Spygate Scandal



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Done? But imagine the damage he could in 200 days!



Actually could be 520 days as AAG.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Let's say Bill Clinton fires an AG he doesn’t like. Then appoints a temporary one (without Senate approval) who he knows would help him.

The appointments clause is a safeguard against this kind of presidential corruption.

An AG has to serve on the Advice and Consent of the Senate of the US.


And I'm going to add this...

This is an example of the wisdom of our constitution that we all should be proud of


Eaton clearly establishes that Congress was constitutionally given the power to imbue the President discretionary power to name "vice-consul" as a temporary office holders. So again, the two statutes that currently imbue that power are what is the subject of interpretation.

Unless they are overturning an interpretation that predates 1898, the only question before the court is what has primacy.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:20 PM
link   
A temporary appointment of 200 days?

The damage a temp appointment could be awesome!

That’s the wisdom of the appointments clause of the constitution.

Don’t look at Trump.

Imagine Obama having a dispute with his AG, and has a friend in the AG office that is a puppet.

Obama fires the AG he’s fighting with and appoints for 200 days his puppet!



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Oh for crying outloud! Will you please finish being wrong in your other thread before you so quickly rush off to be wrong in an entirely different thread.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: RadioRobert

Imo as long as it is" temporary" they dont have a leg to stand on.


I tend to disagree. It won't matter for Eaton though. It'll just matter for the next temp AG appointment.

Regardless, it is a tempest in a teapot.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join