You may have a point there. I hope we get to test this theory and see how the chips fall. And I hope you’re right, if it does happen. My cynicism is keeping me from going all in though.
I hope somehow someone makes his epitaph, “Here lies a man that lied, and lied, and lied, and continues to lie.”
This should have been posted here somewhere:
There is a pretty strong case for Trump’s appointment of Whitaker to be found unconstitutional:* https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html
Whitaker meets or exceeds Trump™ requirements: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/acting-attorney-general-was-board-member-of-company-accused-of-scam-2018-11-07
Not only was he on the board of a company that was forcibly terminated by the federal government for scamming its customers out of several millions, Whitaker personally signed documents threatening their victims.
*In the event that it winds up in court…
I thought about this too until I read up on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. It’s pretty broad and allows the President to appoint just about anybody he wants for up to 210 days without confirmation.
On the other hand, once you’re appointed acting head you’re not allowed to keep the job permanently. Trump will have to nominate someone else who will then have to face Senate confirmation.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/acting-accordingly-acting-officers-and-federal-vacancies-reform-act
They are ALL Trump tools. The entire executive branch is a Trump tool. Actually, until January, the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT IS A TRUMP TOOL.
The editorial I cited extensively references a case that went before SCOTUS last year, and resulted in the appointment of the general counsel to the NLRB being invalidated. The Vacancies Reform Act is specifically cited in that ruling.
Per Justice Thomas (who must have really been eating his wheaties back then)…
even if the statute [i.e. the Vacancies Reform Act] had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.
Edit: corrected cut/paste issues
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
