Rule of Law or Just Rule?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well I don't know if that's part of The Cannon Ruling or not, or if there's something in The Ruling that is different.

When I read it and get some inside info, I'll comment back.

I need The ruling material.

What you posted might be in The Ruling? You said you don't know.

Too much confusion, I need inside info. 😀

so this is gonna be the angle you on the right are going to use to undermine the rule of equality under the law that george washington established to prevent the rise of a king or nobility, to prevent the chaos of the late roman republic where government was divided among factions, using the law as a tool of revenge against one another, escalating things until people start using violence to avoid legal punishment, until eventually armies form under factions and battles start happening on the regular, on top of that the leaders of these factions using popular sentiment to direct mobs at each other.

do you guys want an imperial republic that bad, to follow the doomed path of rome?

remember, just like the Confederacy, Rome was also a failure, a loser. do you want America to fail too? just so you can do whatever you want like wild beasts?

Does anyone know if Jack Smith was ever confirmed by The Senate for anything? 😬

a reply to: namehere

Maybe you can help. What's the most pertinent citation from The Cannon Ruling that is debatable either way? 😃 (Nobility aside of course)

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well I don't know if that's part of The Cannon Ruling or not, or if there's something in The Ruling that is different.

When I read it and get some inside info, I'll comment back.

I need The ruling material.

What you posted might be in The Ruling? You said you don't know.

Too much confusion, I need inside info. 😀

It's in a PDF sadly, but here it is:
courtlistener.com

a reply to: namehere

Rome lasted nearly a thousand years. How is that a failure?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Does anyone know if Jack Smith was ever confirmed by The Senate for anything? 😬

It doesn't matter. Congress passed a law delegating authority to the Attorney General to appoint special counsels. I suppose Jack Smith will argue that he is indeed inferior to Garland, and present the guidelines given to him.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Does anyone know if Jack Smith was ever confirmed by The Senate for anything? 😬

senate confirmation isn't needed, appointing him is the responsibly of the Attorney general as part of his job to prosecute federal crimes, and the ag was confirmed by the senate so why would he need to go through the senate to do his job every time he needs to prosecute someone? senate passes laws not executes the law..

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: xuenchen
Does anyone know if Jack Smith was ever confirmed by The Senate for anything? 😬

It doesn't matter. Congress passed a law delegating authority to the Attorney General to appoint special counsels. I suppose Jack Smith will argue that he is indeed inferior to Garland, and present the guidelines given to him.

Good point of possibility. Smith filed an appeal (I have not read it either). Maybe he is citing all that? 😀

a reply to: Sookiechacha

This is the argument, but given that he had unlimited authority and funding, he had similar power to Garland. That was why and how his appointment was unConstitutional as that the amount of power had had been given Congress would have been needed for him to be appointed.

originally posted by: namehere

originally posted by: xuenchen
Does anyone know if Jack Smith was ever confirmed by The Senate for anything? 😬

senate confirmation isn't needed, appointing him is the responsibly of the Attorney general as part of his job to prosecute federal crimes, and the ag was confirmed by the senate so why would he need to go through the senate to do his job every time he needs to prosecute someone? senate passes laws not executes the law..

Good argument for The J.Smith Appeal. Do you know if he cited that in the appeal? 💲

a reply to: Guyfriday

....given that he had unlimited authority and funding...

This is the argument.

Of course Smith's scope and budget were limited. I think that can be easily proven.

originally posted by: Guyfriday

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well I don't know if that's part of The Cannon Ruling or not, or if there's something in The Ruling that is different.

When I read it and get some inside info, I'll comment back.

I need The ruling material.

What you posted might be in The Ruling? You said you don't know.

Too much confusion, I need inside info. 😀

It's in a PDF sadly, but here it is:
courtlistener.com

At first quick glance from the last page upwards, looks like Cannon may have some good citations that will hold up!!

The Appeals Court Judges have some work to do, and they must be careful since The SCOTUS will probably get this case and appeals judges hate to be made out to look like fools. 😬

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Guyfriday

....given that he had unlimited authority and funding...

This is the argument.

Of course Smith's scope and budget were limited. I think that can be easily proven.

Hypothetically, A SCOTUS Ruling could include strong leanings for striking what they would declare to be too much power abuse by unelected persons. ❗️ Weak and unchallenged "precedents" can be dangerous as we know from the Roe vs Wade debacle. What do you think? 😯

a reply to: xuenchen

The power for agencies to create their own rule sets unabated by the law has already been tamped down with the Loper vs Raimondo case, so if this did get to SCOTUS, then I would be willing to bet that the reduction in nonelected authority of the people would again get tamped here to.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: xuenchen

The power for agencies to create their own rule sets unabated by the law has already been tamped down with the Loper vs Raimondo case, so if this did get to SCOTUS, then I would be willing to bet that the reduction in nonelected authority of the people would again get tamped here to.

Good example. 👍

Plenty of positives can come from believing in Jesus.

But at the end of the day, they still worship a tyrant.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: namehere

originally posted by: xuenchen
Does anyone know if Jack Smith was ever confirmed by The Senate for anything? 😬

senate confirmation isn't needed, appointing him is the responsibly of the Attorney general as part of his job to prosecute federal crimes, and the ag was confirmed by the senate so why would he need to go through the senate to do his job every time he needs to prosecute someone? senate passes laws not executes the law..

Good argument for The J.Smith Appeal. Do you know if he cited that in the appeal? 💲

that isn't available yet, could only find the notice of appeal. but most likely since the Constitution says as much

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.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Can you quote the parts from Cannon's Ruling that is going to get appealed for the strongest ?

No. But I can show you this citation.

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

www.ecfr.gov...
********PRECENENT********

Again, if Jack Smith's appoint was illegal, so were all the others.

That’s not the precedent because there is no precedent.
Smith and Garland are trying to use the US vs Nixon case as precedent.
The regulation used to appoint the special counsel in the Nixon case is completely different than the regulation used to appoint Smith. No precedent there.
The DOJ can’t solely invent an office without complying with the Appointments Clause.

a reply to: Vermilion

The regulation used to appoint the special counsel in the Nixon case is completely different than the regulation used to appoint Smith.

Cox was appointed by the AG. The Supreme Court was okay with that. Nixon later fired Cox, during the "Saturday night massacre, " and then he appointed Jaworksi after a lot of outrage. Jaworksi charged several Nixon staffers.

No precedent there.

There is.

The DOJ can’t solely invent an office without complying with the Appointments Clause.

It looks to me like they did.

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.

Anyway, President Biden told Merrick Garland to do whatever he needed to do to prosecute Donald Trump.