Top Supreme Court lawyer: Whitaker appointment 'constitutional crisis'

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: TheOne7

It is not about politics left or right but the rule of law.

I don't want to hear it. The left blatantly, clearly, obviously and unmistakably is absolutely and unquestionably 100% disinterested in the so-called "Rule of law."

So much that it is a joke.

If you believed in 1/10th of the crap you're saying, you'd have joined the calls for the Mueller farce to be shut down without recourse.

Further, he was already investigated & cleared by the FBI and the agents involved admitted/confessed there was "no there, there"

Beyond all that, the severe and extreme misconduct by those individuals involved in both this lie/farce AND the Clinton investigation circus have completely destroyed any credibility they had remaining along with permanently giving them the label of "traitorous scum"

Any person still supporting this joke has precisely zero interest in the rule of law.

So again, save the ethical/moral high road fallacy for someone who hasn't been paying attention.

Advise and consent...not feelings

I dare you to take a deep breath and read the article linked

The person with the most to lose by whithakers appointment is trump cause it directly implicates him in true obstruction of justice.

a reply to: TheOne7

no it does not.

a reply to: TheOne7


When you view justice thru a political lens ie party I don't think you are qualified to even discuss justice and it's meaning.

a reply to: seeker1963

I agree

originally posted by: TheOne7

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: TheOne7

It is not about politics left or right but the rule of law.

I don't want to hear it. The left blatantly, clearly, obviously and unmistakably is absolutely and unquestionably 100% disinterested in the so-called "Rule of law."

So much that it is a joke.

If you believed in 1/10th of the crap you're saying, you'd have joined the calls for the Mueller farce to be shut down without recourse.

Further, he was already investigated & cleared by the FBI and the agents involved admitted/confessed there was "no there, there"

Beyond all that, the severe and extreme misconduct by those individuals involved in both this lie/farce AND the Clinton investigation circus have completely destroyed any credibility they had remaining along with permanently giving them the label of "traitorous scum"

Any person still supporting this joke has precisely zero interest in the rule of law.

So again, save the ethical/moral high road fallacy for someone who hasn't been paying attention.

The person with the most to lose by whithakers appointment is trump cause it directly implicates him in true obstruction of justice.

Unless a 2/3 majority in the Senate reach this conclusion, nothing will happen.

a reply to: TheOne7

This keeps the public safe from tyrants attempting to obstruct justice.

Good thing there is no justice to obstruct. Just a plot by traitorous far left insurgents.

Yes potus can fire them but by law when he replaces or appoints temps they have to go through or have the advise and consent process.

No, they do not. Only when someone is nominated to assume the role of Attorney General.

Lets look at the reality here, Rosenstein no longer has any real authority or power and the left's ace in the hole is gone along with their other "insurance policy" bag of tricks. Mueller can't take a piss without Whittaker's authorization, and that is exactly how he and his team of partisan hacks need to be: neutered. What part about this farce has been investigated & Trump cleared along with the extreme partisan conspiracy exposed did you miss?

You have been paying attention the last 2 years, haven't you?

Even the left's strange idol, Obama, admitted there was nothing there. So either he (and your other heroes) are lying to your face, or he's telling the truth and there is nothing there

The investigation has been revealed beyond any doubt to be a total farce and nothing more than a leftist narrative pushed by deluded and hysterical partisans that can't get over Clinton's unexpected & historically embarrassing loss. The plot is exposed. The players are discredited. The damage to the legitimacy of our justice system is immense and probably irreparable.

And you didn't even make a dent on Trump. You should kindly move past this.

a reply to: TheOne7

I did read the article. You posted an 1860's act that has been superseded (at least in part) several times since.

Last I checked, there is no criminal sanctions for violating that act nor is it included (rightfully so) under Title 18 USC (which deals with criminal offenses). I hope this isn't the new collusion delusion, because much like the fake-Russia BS absolutely nothing will come of this. Hope to see you still grasping at this straws in 2020 when Trump may or may not EARN re-election. Either way, he won't be ended by this joke of a seditious conspiracy. If it wasn't so poorly orchestrated & contradictory (again, I reference Obama, FBI agents involved, FBI's first conclusion, severely gross misconduct, criminal plots, etc) it would be laughingly funny. Hysterical actually

As I've demonstrated, there is no "justice" to obstruct because this isn't justice. It is a partisan farce leftist narrative plot, Q.E.D.

a reply to: TheOne7

last I checked the last guy resigned. Voluntarily.

a reply to: JBurns

Only when someone is nominated to assume the role of Attorney General.

Can you cite the law that backs this claim up?

Here's The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, for you to research.

www.gsa.gov...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He did

But he (and several others on the left) think that if they can somehow demonstrate he was fired vs. resigned that someone (who exactly, I couldn't tell you) will "overrule" the President and put Rosenstain in Whittaker's place.

Of course they are completely wrong, since Sessions himself stated "I resign" along with Sessions being the only person who has "standing" to take the matter to court.

There is a 0% chance this will make any difference.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Sure you can.

Actions > words.

a reply to: ketsuko

Credit where it's due. At least they are looking at it. At least the know it exists!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes.

United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

IE: The Senate must "Advise and Consent" for certain Presidential appointments - but not make the nominations or appointments themselves. This also means Congress can't pass a law that has the effect of appointing or nominating any person for that position, they may merely "advise" the President and must provide their "consent"

Forcing the President to select any person to fill any role under his authority would be infringing on the separation of powers and the President's Constitutional authority to appoint executive branch officers (especially inferior officers, read: not the AG/cabinet level) and nominate judicial officers.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Regardless, this 18xx act you keep grasping at is not under USC Title 18 and is not in the realm of criminal law.

Face it, Rosenstain is out and probably sits in his office all day licking his wounds like a little neutered puppy. Exactly where he belongs. Actually, he & the others involved in this criminal conspiracy belong in prison. But I'll settle for neutered/shamed.

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
a reply to: Aallanon

Your only allowed 17 constitutional crisis's at once. this would make 18...fail

What's the government's next step, now that we're in a full-blown constitutional crises, according to:
www.cnbc.com... ???

If the crises isn't just another piece of never-ending fake news, something will be done to end this crises ASAP..won't it?

OMG: I just looked at the date on the O.P.'s article. It's from last month! Since no one in government acknowledged this "crises", it's FAKE NEWS.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And one more just for good measure

On November 21, 2013, the Democratic Party, led by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, overrode the filibuster of a nomination with a simple majority vote to change the rules.[7] As a result, for instance, judicial nominees to federal courts and a president's executive-branch nominations can be freed up for a confirmation vote by a simple majority vote of the Senate. However, he left the filibuster in place for Supreme Court nominees.

If you really think our Senate Majority is going to put some leftist tool in Whitaker's place you're sadly mistaken.

Whitaker is right where he needs to be. And any amount of money says he stays there until/unless Trump comes up with a more loyal-to-America-and-the-Constitution nominee. Who will also be confirmed without any delay, thanks to our historical retention of the Senate. Actually widened our numbers.

Enjoy the House though. Going to do a lot of good at preventing our nominees from taking office or the rest of our SCOTUS Justices/Fed judges from being confirmed. But at least you can maybe get Tax returns after years of court battles that may/may not show our President is smart and only pays the absolute minimum required in taxes. Or maybe even less, who really cares? Less taxes = less money you and your kind can waste on frivolous political persecutions and studies of icebergs/feminism (because we all know how much those things matter, roll eyes)

a reply to: carewemust

The same solution they always propose carewemust They want to see some kind of coup (or a legal coup, as if that makes it any better)

Actually similar to what leftist tools in Israel are doing to brave PM Netanyahu as we speak.

There is no low too low for them. And just when you think They can't possibly stoop any lower, they find a way.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Doesn't matter.

Requesting something is different from ordering them. Regardless, if he didn't want to resign he could refuse the order and force Trump to fire him for insubordination. He didn't do that.

In fact, he clearly states he is resigning, ie: quitting voluntarily as the President REQUESTed

Person A: Person B, you are doing a horrible job and I want you to resign.

^This is an example of a request. Whether Person B actually follows through any honors the request is irrelevant, either way staying/leaving is Person B's choice.

Person A: Person B, you are an ineffective coward and you don't deserve the title of AG. You are fired.

^This is an example of a termination. Whether Person B wants to quit/resign or keep their job, they were terminated and have no say in the matter. This is Person A's choice.

Person A: Person B, you are a terrible AG. I order you to resign.
Person B: Declines
Person A: You are fired for insubordination.

^This is also an example of a termination.

Now tell me which one of these scenarios happened with Sessions.

Clearly, option A - voluntary resignation.

a reply to: JBurns

If you really think our Senate Majority is going to put some leftist tool in Whitaker's place you're sadly mistaken.

Sadly, even your sourcle-ess citation confirms that the Senate has to confirm Sessions successor, even if he or she is a temporary appointment.

Whitaker is right where he needs to be.

Maybe, but he still needs to be confirmed in order to be legitimate. Right now he's not.

a reply to: JinMI

Trump asked for his resignation. Sessions wrote that in his resignation letter that he was asked to resign.

Here is a quote from the first line of his resignation letter.

"Dear Mr. President,

At your request, I am submitting my resignation."

www.vox.com...

a reply to: JBurns

The people who elected the politicians get really pissed off when they ignore their campaign promises, and focus on crap that does NOTHING to make citizen's quality of life better. France and Germany seem to be two current examples of citizen revolt.