Attorney General lacks the authority to appoint and fund a special counsel. Actually, according to the ruling, it is unconstitutional to pay for a special counsel unless congress votes to fund it.
According to this ruling, the Attorney General may have to seek approval from congress to engage in any prosecution. The Justice Department is…
Judge Cannon goes another step too far
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/15/trump-documents-cannon-dismiss-case/
A special counsel is the same high level official as a US Attorney such as the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Such officials have to go before the Senate for approval. This never happened with Jack Smith. If the Attorney General (Merrick Garland) had appointed, for example, a US Attorney to investigate the classified document case then there would be no problem.
DB2
So will Hunter Biden’s conviction be overturned?
Not according to the Supreme Court in the ruling U.S. v. Nixon. The US Attorney General is the high level office and does go before the Senate for confirmation. The Special Counsel is not designed to be confirmed by a political agenda, the whole point is to designate an A-political investigation, not to create a permanent office.
There are lots of other offices lower than the Attorney General that go before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here is a list of recent activity:
This list includes nominees for
~ US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts
~ Commissioner of the United States Parole Commission
~ United States Marshal for the Middle District of Alabama
~ Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
~ Member of the United States Sentencing Commission
~ Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
Et cetera.
DB2
Again, those are permanent office with broad authority. The Special Counsel is a narrow investigation under the specific criteria designated by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel is not an office “perpetuus”, as are these examples you provide.
We need to stop being suckers for tax cuts we will never truly get. We need to vote on more important things than dreams of tax-free lottery winnings.
Bob is completely correct. Time for the Democrats to grow up. We need to pass laws to enact them. Not enact imaginary things and try to get along with the GOP.
Interesting that the David Weiss special counsel appointment/investigation into someone who has never held political office, he just knows someone who does, passes muster
Same thing in some ways.
Power is actually backed up legally by enacting actual legislation. The shadow boxing does nothing.
That is the issue and an important one. I’m sure it will be appealed, but that doesn’t make it ‘a step too far’.
DB2
Not my comment, that was the opinion of the Washington Post Editorial Board.
Correct me if I’m wrong, all special counsel investigation/deliberation are paid by the Justice Department whose budget is appropriated by congress.
Recall, we are in a “war against the administrative state”. Apparently, Congress is supposed to micromanage everything…“I introduce a bill for the Department of Justice to buy a box of paperclips, and for other purposes”.
Steve
Economic issues:
The Captain
wants to know
This issue has been litigated over and over and over and over again and has universally found that the current Special Counsel set up is just fine, thank you. Only an irrational SCOTUS could change that … we’ll see.
The current U.S. Supreme Court has just created a Constitutional Monarchy.
I disagree with this in full. The public has been irrational. We have super majority agreement on most of the issues if not every issue.
Yet we supported supply-side economics something we know better than to support.
That is changing. Stop voting your purses in a way that makes you and the country poorer.
The people still supporting supply side economics report only half the news because dealing with reality was beyond them.
What Constitution?
Remember John Yoo’s “inherent powers” doctrine that claims the POTUS has powers not enumerated in the Constitution?
Remember impeachment defense counsel’s assertion that, if the POTUS decides it is “in the national interest” to ignore an election and stay in power, it’s legal? The framing of that argument makes ignoring an election an “official act”, for which SCOTUS says the POTUS has complete immunity.
What Constitution?
Steve
I disagree. Twenty characters…
No matter what is claimed, the President’s term ends at noon on Jan 20 after an election. Which raises a whole lot of unanswered questions.
What in the world does supply side economics have to do with the Special Counsels?