The Fate of Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General has Reached the Supreme Court.

Friday, November 16, 2018

After Matthew Whitaker was quickly sworn-in as "acting" Attorney General, to replace Jeff Sessions, who resigned earlier that day, Democrats and the Liberal Media went ballistic!

Because, in July of 2017 Matthew Whitaker said on CNN that the best way to terminate the "illegal" Bob Muller investigation, would be to slash his $1 Million monthly budget.

But, the Department of Justice, most Republicans in Congress, and the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, have given Matthew Whitaker their blessings as Acting Attorney General, until a permanent Jeff Sessions' replacement can take Whitaker's place.

Since Democrats know how THEY operate, they're paranoid that Whitaker is going to shut down Special Counsel Mueller's investigations, and direct the DOJ to pursue current/former deep state crooks, with a vengeance.

Somehow, Democrats have been able to quickly advance their legal case for Whitaker's removal as AAG, all to the way to the U.S. SUPREME COURT.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The fight over President Donald Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, with lawyers in a pending gun rights case asking the justices on Friday to decide if the action was lawful.

The lawyers told the justices that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should be the acting attorney general.

“There is a significant national interest in avoiding the prospect that every district and immigration judge in the nation could, in relatively short order, be presented with the controversy over which person to substitute as Acting Attorney General,” the lawyers, led by prominent Supreme Court advocate Thomas Goldstein, wrote in a court filing.

Congressional Democrats have voiced concern that Whitaker, who they have called a Trump “political lackey,” could undermine or even fire Mueller.

More at: www.reuters.com...

Even Matthew Whitaker himself said yesterday that Bob Mueller is doing a good job in his role as Special Counsel. Wouldn't it be a hoot, if Bob Mueller himself endorsed Whitaker?

-CareWeMust

a reply to: carewemust

I suppose there will have to be some law forcing Kav to recuse himself from the decision eh?

Since when do unelected judges decide who the President may have in his cabinet?

Leftists are such cry babies when they get beat at their own crooked little game.

Go Trump!!!

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: carewemust

I suppose there will have to be some law forcing Kavanaugh to recuse himself from the decision eh?

Good point! I'm sure Democrat's mental wheels are turning on this one, lol.

originally posted by: starviego
Since when do unelected judges decide who the President may have in his cabinet?

Like the article said, the Supreme Court might just ignore this Case, asking for Whitaker's removal.

originally posted by: whywhynot
Leftists are such cry babies when they get beat at their own crooked little game.
Go Trump!!!

And when the day's news is mostly bad for Democrats, CNN and MSNBC pull out the "Mentally Unstable Trump" playbook, and talk about chaos, Trump's top lies of the week, who Melania is mad at, Trump Tantrums, and more. Hours and hours of it, until there is bigger news story to report.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: carewemust

I suppose there will have to be some law forcing Kavanaugh to recuse himself from the decision eh?

Good point! I'm sure Democrat's mental wheels are turning on this one, lol.

Lets see if they get any traction on that. My observation is that mental wheels have no tires or tread when it comes to Democrat thought processes (lately)...

ganjoa

So, I guess you'll be okay when this, or any future president, replacing the entire cabinet with stooges overnight without Senate confirmation.

No, of course not, you'd be calling for public executions if any Dem president even stepped a millimeter near the edge of any of the appointment rules or statutes.

originally posted by: Moresby
So, I guess you'll be okay when this, or any future president, replacing the entire cabinet with stooges overnight without Senate confirmation.

No, of course not, you'd be calling for public executions if any Dem president even stepped a millimeter near the edge of any of the appointment rules or statutes.

Foolish and ignorant post.

*Acting and currently looking for a replacement. Not your dreamed up fantasy fear mongering.

Actually, the source is a mix fun bag you have to read.

The Dims haven't been able to quickly "advance" more so than use current and active cases to make their request.

Kinda like slipping in an admendment last second to avoid scrutiny.

Here,

"Lawyers for Barry Michaels, who filed a lawsuit in Nevada challenging a U.S. law that bars him from buying a firearm due to prior non-violent criminal convictions, decided to make Whitaker’s appointment an issue in their pending appeal before the high court because Sessions was named as a defendant in the case." Et al.

See? Make it an issue simply cause Sessions name is there.

Another one within the same article,

"Some of the same lawyers behind Friday’s motion also are involved in a similar effort brought before a federal judge on Tuesday. In that case, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh asked a federal judge to bar Whitaker from appearing in an official capacity as acting attorney general in the state’s ongoing lawsuit against the Trump administration over the Affordable Care Act healthcare law." Et al.

In other words, a concertive effort to try and derail AAG Whitaker.

However, we know this is the most important part that kills the fear mongering,

***"The court is not required to decide one way or another and could simply ignore or reject the motion." Et al.

Source: OP link.

The Dims can scream all they like 😌

a reply to: carewemust

Whats really sad is we never run out of material.

originally posted by: Moresby
So, I guess you'll be okay when this, or any future president, replacing the entire cabinet with stooges overnight without Senate confirmation.

No, of course not, you'd be calling for public executions if any Dem president even stepped a millimeter near the edge of any of the appointment rules or statutes.

I'd have a problem if he attempted to make the temporary assignment a permanent position, yes. Obama did that with Solomon on the NLRB. I
It doesn't work that way.

I don't have a problem with the temporary assignment that complies with the FVRA and US v Eaton, no.

ETA: I'm sympathetic to the argument that a temporary asignee come from a position that is PAS. But the Senate clearly granted the power of this temporary assignment from outside PAS roles in the VRA to the Executive. Until/unless the court strikes the 1998 statute, it is still the law of the land.

originally posted by: Arnie123
"Lawyers for Barry Michaels, who filed a lawsuit in Nevada challenging a U.S. law that bars him from buying a firearm due to prior non-violent criminal convictions, decided to make Whitaker’s appointment an issue in their pending appeal before the high court because Sessions was named as a defendant in the case."

If I was Barry Michaels, I'd be pissed my lawyers are using my Supreme Court case to argue for something totally unrelated. I'm assuming they're not working pro bono, and even if they were, I'd still be pissed. They are supposed to represent their client, not outside interests.

a reply to: Urantia1111

Of course not

Recusal is an informal/non-binding gesture only. There is no legal requirement to recuse yourself, and no law governing how those are handled. The President, as head of the Executive, can install whoever he wants in these roles because they are merely his agents, carrying out his duty to Execute the laws of the Union. The DOJ exists as an extension of the President, they are not at all separate or independent from the Executive branch....they are part of the Executive branch.

...and thankfully this SCOTUS is very likely to side with Trump. Rightfully so. The President picks the DOJ head along with the rest of his cabinet. Separation of powers prevents other branches from appointing Executive branch employees and the President (as chief of the Executive branch) can put whoever he wants in those positions.

Steve Bannon's position on the powerful NSC proved that much.

All ABC/XYZ agencies exist to carry out, by extension/agency, the President's duty & authority to execute the laws as made by Congress.

1. No laws were broken as the president has the right to do this.
2. How the F did this reach the SCOTUS already?

Meanwhile the media does not cover the Cyberbill signed into law the other day that will escalate them to the same level as DHS to work to investigate and prevent cybercrime.

It is all a sad joke...

originally posted by: thov420

originally posted by: Arnie123
"Lawyers for Barry Michaels, who filed a lawsuit in Nevada challenging a U.S. law that bars him from buying a firearm due to prior non-violent criminal convictions, decided to make Whitaker’s appointment an issue in their pending appeal before the high court because Sessions was named as a defendant in the case."

If I was Barry Michaels, I'd be pissed my lawyers are using my Supreme Court case to argue for something totally unrelated. I'm assuming they're not working pro bono, and even if they were, I'd still be pissed. They are supposed to represent their client, not outside interests.

They are working for their clients interest. They're trying to show Whitaker has no standing to bring the case against the Michaels. I don't think it'll work, but it only takes a few hours to draft the motion.

a reply to: carewemust
Monday, November 19, 2018

This could be an indicator of what's coming soon...

President Trump on Sunday said he is giving acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker free rein over special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, including limiting or shutting down the investigation.

“It’s going to be up to him,” Mr. Trump said in an interview aired on Fox News Sunday.” “I wouldn’t get involved.”

www.washingtontimes.com...

No wonder Democrat Senators filed a lawsuit today, to get Whitaker removed.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: carewemust
Monday, November 19, 2018

This could be an indicator of what's coming soon...

President Trump on Sunday said he is giving acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker free rein over special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, including limiting or shutting down the investigation.

“It’s going to be up to him,” Mr. Trump said in an interview aired on Fox News Sunday.” “I wouldn’t get involved.”

www.washingtontimes.com...

No wonder Democrat Senators filed a lawsuit today, to get Whitaker removed.

oh, that is interesting...

a reply to: Moresby

" So, I guess you'll be okay when this, or any future president, replacing the entire cabinet with stooges overnight without Senate confirmation. "


LOL , Obama CHANGE 2012 ...........History Boy........