|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 15, 2024 21:16:14 GMT -5
So was the Hur appointment improper as well? If he was appointed the same way, she would say "yes." I presume he was for the sake of argument. Same with Mueller. She's basically saying that since 1999, there hasn't been Federal authority for DOJ (the Attorney General) to appoint independent special counsels.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Jul 15, 2024 21:18:49 GMT -5
So was the Hur appointment improper as well? If he was appointed the same way, she would say "yes." I presume he was for the sake of argument. Same with Mueller. She's basically saying that since 1999, there hasn't been Federal authority for DOJ (the Attorney General) to appoint independent special counsels. Is she that good that her opinion is more rock solid than all those in the last 25 years? Seems like a pretty big legal departure.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 15, 2024 21:22:48 GMT -5
Ha, she called Smith "ilk."
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Jul 15, 2024 21:24:16 GMT -5
Ha, she called Smith "ilk." That's a widely accepted legal term, right?
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 15, 2024 21:33:22 GMT -5
I'm going to quit reading for tonight, because she's starting to lose me on her discussion of 533 and I'm losing interest as I get more tired.
I think her reasoning for the other statutes is sound. For 533 she's quibbling over whether an independent special counsel is an "officer" or an "official." She's saying an independent special counsel is an "officer" not an "official" and therefore this section can't be interpreted for appointment of an independent special counsel. I may not be buying that. I'd like to read Jack Smith's brief, and also previous opinion since 1999 that have upheld the appointments of special counsels.
I do agree it would be a better practice for Congress to renew the special counsel statute so that there's no question as to the Constitutionality.
My impression at this point is that 533 is written so generically that the interpreter can chose to interpret it for or against special counsel appointment as they wish.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 15, 2024 21:40:17 GMT -5
Ha, she called Smith "ilk." That's a widely accepted legal term, right? No. It would be very rude if I called someone "ilk" in a brief. It's amusing to read it only because it surprised me and I can imagine smoke coming out of his ears when he read it, just as I can imagine the dark cloud hanging over his office today. And that's not a put down against him. I've been there and done that. I have not been a nice person to be around in my younger years when something didn't go my way. I don't wish that feeling of being shot down by a judge (who's wrong) on any competent attorney. I think both Smith and the Judge have been taking thinly veiled shots at each other throughout the case. I haven't followed it closely but I've detected some snark between them. Again, been there, done that. I've been the equivalent of that baseball player that's kicked sand at the umpire on what I was convinced was a bad call. You eventually learn to role with it. The Judge has the power. There's things a prosecutor can't be moved on by anyone else but there's a heck of a lot a judge can't be moved on except by a higher judge. I presume Smith has had to learn that lesson at some point. But maybe not. Or maybe this case is the battle of his career and the stakes are just too high.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jul 15, 2024 21:44:47 GMT -5
I also need to read the Nixon case. I'm not sure I ever have. If I did, I've forgotten it. Smith is arguing that it refutes her interpretation of those statutes. She's saying that it sort of does, but it's dicta so it doesn't matter.
Dicta or dictum are pronouncements courts make in opinions that talk about potential holdings on legal matters not actually before the court. Dicta isn't binding as a legal interpretation, but it's still given weight depending on which court pronounced it. Nixon was a Supreme Court case. So even dicta there is powerful.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Jul 15, 2024 21:47:29 GMT -5
I have to give you credit, thanks for taking the time to read this and share.
|
|
|
Post by johngalt on Jul 16, 2024 7:09:25 GMT -5
Next stop for Judge Cannon will be SCOTUS. Probably would be a good pick since she knows how to read the Constitution and understands that is what binds this country together and is to be followed. π
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Jul 16, 2024 7:44:26 GMT -5
Next stop for Judge Cannon will be SCOTUS. Probably would be a good pick since she knows how to read the Constitution and understands that is what binds this country together and is to be followed. π Unless you are an election stealing magaa traitor.
|
|
|
Post by illinoisfisherman on Jul 16, 2024 7:47:03 GMT -5
Man. The lunacy on here is astounding
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jul 16, 2024 7:50:03 GMT -5
Man. The lunacy on here is astounding From both sides.
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jul 16, 2024 7:56:40 GMT -5
Next stop for Judge Cannon will be SCOTUS. Probably would be a good pick since she knows how to read the Constitution and understands that is what binds this country together and is to be followed. π Pretty good chance she also knows what a woman is.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Jul 16, 2024 16:12:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by johngalt on Jul 16, 2024 16:15:54 GMT -5
Good. π See my post above.
|
|