• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Legal Challenges to Whitaker appointment

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
9,400
Reaction score
4,220
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A legal expert for Fox News says that the appointment of Whitaker to be AG is not constitutional. That he does not meet the legal requirements and has not been approved by the Senate. So if his appointment is found to be unconstitutional as suggested by the legal expert from Fox News, what happens to any actions he takes?
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
37,631
Reaction score
24,097
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A legal expert for Fox News says that the appointment of Whitaker to be AG is not constitutional. That he does not meet the legal requirements and has not been approved by the Senate. So if his appointment is found to be unconstitutional as suggested by the legal expert from Fox News, what happens to any actions he takes?

Reports state that the “acting appointment” works for seven months. Much can happen in seven months, both in litigation and the Mueller probe.....
 

Bullseye

Fund police; Defund the politicians
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
33,508
Reaction score
11,151
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A legal expert for Fox News says that the appointment of Whitaker to be AG is not constitutional. That he does not meet the legal requirements and has not been approved by the Senate. So if his appointment is found to be unconstitutional as suggested by the legal expert from Fox News, what happens to any actions he takes?
Got any links or quotes on that?
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,586
Reaction score
29,836
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A legal expert for Fox News says that the appointment of Whitaker to be AG is not constitutional. That he does not meet the legal requirements and has not been approved by the Senate. So if his appointment is found to be unconstitutional as suggested by the legal expert from Fox News, what happens to any actions he takes?

I wonder if anyone is going to challenge his appointment.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,554
Reaction score
7,652
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

There is no question that the AG is a "principle role". The argument that the Vacancies Reform Act supersedes the Constitutional requirement that demands that those serving in a principle role be approved by the Senate is another one of these specious, lets play word games with the Constitution arguments. If the VRA was intended to "supersede" the Constitutional requirement it would have spelled it out in the statute. It isn't in the statute. As such it does not supersede the requirement.

The argument that it is a temporary assignment (part of the same argument) is specious as well. It is still a principle role. Does not matter how temporary it is. Does your "temporary" CEO have the principle assignment as CEO...yes he does. The distinction as "Acting" AG does not help the argument that Whitaker should be in there either.

Katyal may have worked in a Dem Administration. That does not make him wrong. In fact, as I remember it he has worked in both Dem and Republican administrations.
 
Last edited:

RAMOSS

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
54,797
Reaction score
20,576
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A legal expert for Fox News says that the appointment of Whitaker to be AG is not constitutional. That he does not meet the legal requirements and has not been approved by the Senate. So if his appointment is found to be unconstitutional as suggested by the legal expert from Fox News, what happens to any actions he takes?

He can only work there temporarily. He can act as the appointment for up to 210 days before someone who is approved by the senate has to take control.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A legal expert for Fox News says that the appointment of Whitaker to be AG is not constitutional. That he does not meet the legal requirements and has not been approved by the Senate. So if his appointment is found to be unconstitutional as suggested by the legal expert from Fox News, what happens to any actions he takes?

He has not been appointed; he is ACTING USAG...let's see the LINK with the QUOTE, which , I notice, you CONVENIENTLY NEGTLECTED TO PROVIDE.


Why would you do that?
 

Slavister

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,575
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He can only work there temporarily. He can act as the appointment for up to 210 days before someone who is approved by the senate has to take control.

Unless Trump fires him and then hires another "temporary" AG... or even same one as "new" one... right?

Trump is the embodiment why this country needs more laws and regulations...
 

RAMOSS

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
54,797
Reaction score
20,576
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unless Trump fires him and then hires another "temporary" AG... or even same one as "new" one... right?

Trump is the embodiment why this country needs more laws and regulations...

He can't even do it if he fires him. I can see because of the phrasing of Sessions letter that it can be interpreted as 'fired'... which would make whittigar's appointment illegal anyway.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Unless Trump fires him and then hires another "temporary" AG... or even same one as "new" one... right?

Trump is the embodiment why this country needs more laws and regulations...

No...the President will appoint a USAG that is his political ally, as has EVERY POTUS IN HISTORY, and said nominee, will be EASILY APPROVED BY THE GOP-ENHANCED SENATE, as well....same with JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS.


Meanwhile the Dumb-o-crats plan to "keep investigating Russia", even after the Witch Hunt admits that there was, no collusion...at least BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.


An investigation into the Obama Swamp/DNC/Hillary Campaign would yield a FAR DIFFERENT VERDICT...but, as we all, know the RUSSIAN-o-CRATS aren't about to probe THAT , ARE THEY?
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A legal expert for Fox News says that the appointment of Whitaker to be AG is not constitutional. That he does not meet the legal requirements and has not been approved by the Senate. So if his appointment is found to be unconstitutional as suggested by the legal expert from Fox News, what happens to any actions he takes?

What "legal requirements"?
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What "legal requirements"?

They didn't think that far...notice the link to the "legal expert's" quote is missing along with a helluva lotta context and further extrapolation on the point, I'll wager.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What’s Trump’s authority for superseding the AG Succession statute? He’s undoubtedly invoking the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (VRA), which provides (5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(3)) that the President “may direct an officer or employee of [an] Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of [a] vacant office,” provided that the officer or employee has served, for at least 90 days during the year before the vacancy, in a position for which the pay is at least the level of GS-15—a criterion that Matthew Whitaker satisfies.

The Department of Justice’s formal view is that the VRA provides the President with an alternative authority, in addition to the AG Succession Act, to designate who shall perform the AG’s functions and duties during a vacancy in the office. Thus, for example, when AG Alberto Gonzales resigned in 2007, President George W. Bush named the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, Peter Keisler, to be the Acting Attorney General, when the AG Succession Order in effect at the time, issued pursuant to the AG Succession Act, would have assigned those functions to the Solicitor General, then Paul Clement.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,554
Reaction score
7,652
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What’s Trump’s authority for superseding the AG Succession statute? He’s undoubtedly invoking the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (VRA), which provides (5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(3)) that the President “may direct an officer or employee of [an] Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of [a] vacant office,” provided that the officer or employee has served, for at least 90 days during the year before the vacancy, in a position for which the pay is at least the level of GS-15—a criterion that Matthew Whitaker satisfies.

The Department of Justice’s formal view is that the VRA provides the President with an alternative authority, in addition to the AG Succession Act, to designate who shall perform the AG’s functions and duties during a vacancy in the office. Thus, for example, when AG Alberto Gonzales resigned in 2007, President George W. Bush named the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, Peter Keisler, to be the Acting Attorney General, when the AG Succession Order in effect at the time, issued pursuant to the AG Succession Act, would have assigned those functions to the Solicitor General, then Paul Clement.

The Assistant AG for the Civil Division is a position approved by the Senate. So that example does not wash. Keisler was already Senate approved.

The issue of merit is who would have Standing before the Court. It was not hard to find somebody with Standing before the Court in Watergate. Here we have a Special Counsel, not an Independent Counsel. So legal beagles have to be working to find somebody with Standing before the Court. The arguments would be the Principle Roles requirement in the Constitution v the VRA.

IMO the case would hinge on whether the Administration could prove that it had good reason to use the VRA and avoid the Principle Roles requirement. That would be a hard one to prove. Whitaker is an utter buffoon. In fact the very reason Rosenstein has likely not been dealt with is because Noel Franscisco would be overwhelmed immediately by Rosenstein's work load and Whitaker is a veritable idiot. There is nobody left over there. So Whitaker has problems of competence and problems of Conflict of Interest and predisposition on the case just based on his public statements AND he does not have Senate approval. "My kid is about to be Indicted" is not justification for overriding the Principle Roles requirement.

IMO if the news tonight that Justice Ethics Officer has already weighed in and has recommended that Whitaker recuse himself, if there was any doubt at the Court, that recommendation from Justice Ethics would push it over the finish line and Whitaker would be through.

That brings me back to having to find somebody with Standing before the Court to bring the case. But the Administration would not have the stronger case.

Trump of course only picks people based on complete tunnel vision loyalty to him which invariably draws him into these circumstances having chosen utter buffoons for jobs that require a brain.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Assistant AG for the Civil Division is a position approved by the Senate. So that example does not wash. Keisler was already Senate approved.

The issue of merit is who would have Standing before the Court. It was not hard to find somebody with Standing before the Court in Watergate. Here we have a Special Counsel, not an Independent Counsel. So legal beagles have to be working to find somebody with Standing before the Court. The arguments would be the Principle Roles requirement in the Constitution v the VRA.

IMO the case would hinge on whether the Administration could prove that it had good reason to use the VRA and avoid the Principle Roles requirement. That would be a hard one to prove. Whitaker is an utter buffoon. In fact the very reason Rosenstein has likely not been dealt with is because Noel Franscisco would be overwhelmed immediately by Rosenstein's work load and Whitaker is a veritable idiot. There is nobody left over there. So Whitaker has problems of competence and problems of Conflict of Interest and predisposition on the case just based on his public statements AND he does not have Senate approval. "My kid is about to be Indicted" is not justification for overriding the Principle Roles requirement.

IMO if the news tonight that Justice Ethics Officer has already weighed in and has recommended that Whitaker recuse himself, if there was any doubt at the Court, that recommendation from Justice Ethics would push it over the finish line and Whitaker would be through.

That brings me back to having to find somebody with Standing before the Court to bring the case. But the Administration would not have the stronger case.

Trump of course only picks people based on complete tunnel vision loyalty to him which invariably draws him into these circumstances having chosen utter buffoons for jobs that require a brain.

Nonsense. The assistant USAG is named by the AG..the Senate has no voice it, so it "does wash".. Regardless the POTUS is not required to named the asst.AG as successor, or even acting USAG.

Can't read?


which provides (5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(3)) that the President “may direct an officer or employee of [an] Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of [a] vacant office,” provided that the officer or employee has served, for at least 90 days during the year before the vacancy, in a position for which the pay is at least the level of GS-15—a criterion that Matthew Whitaker satisfies.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,554
Reaction score
7,652
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nonsense. The assistant USAG is named by the AG..the Senate has no voice it, so it "does wash".. Regardless the POTUS is not required to named the asst.AG as successor, or even acting USAG.

Can't read?




which provides (5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(3)) that the President “may direct an officer or employee of [an] Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of [a] vacant office,” provided that the officer or employee has served, for at least 90 days during the year before the vacancy, in a position for which the pay is at least the level of GS-15—a criterion that Matthew Whitaker satisfies.

Wrong.... Assistant AG's are Senate approved. As such your example does not wash.

If somebody with standing before the Court can be identified, this ends up in Court and the Administration does not have the stronger case.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Wrong.... Assistant AG's are Senate approved. As such your example does not wash.

If somebody with standing before the Court can be identified, this ends up in Court and the Administration does not have the stronger case.

Believe whatever bull**** you want to makeup..I CITED THE ACTUAL LAW.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,554
Reaction score
7,652
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Believe whatever bull**** you want to makeup..I CITED THE ACTUAL LAW.

It does not matter what you cited. Is there a Principle Roles Requirement in the Constitution? Yes. Is the Principle Roles Requirement mentioned in the statute? NO.

This one is headed to Court IF somebody with Standard before the Court can be identified. Almost laughable that we let the Independent Counsel Statute sunset just after using it AGAIN. "Gee we don't need that any longer". IDIOTS....raving idiots running the country.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It does not matter what you cited. Is there a Principle Roles Requirement in the Constitution? Yes. Is the Principle Roles Requirement mentioned in the statute? NO.

This one is headed to Court IF somebody with Standard before the Court can be identified. Almost laughable that we let the Independent Counsel Statute sunset just after using it AGAIN. "Gee we don't need that any longer". IDIOTS....raving idiots running the country.

There is no such requirement for an ACTING USAG. But feel free to makeup whatever bull**** you need to believe. If after (or before) 210 days, the President wishes to have Whitaker (or anyone else) named as USAG, it will require Senate approval.

That IS NOT THIS. Get a clue.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,554
Reaction score
7,652
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is no such requirement for an ACTING USAG. But feel free to makeup whatever bull**** you need to believe. If after (or before) 210 days, the President wishes to have Whitaker (or anyone else) named as USAG, it will require Senate approval.

That IS NOT THIS. Get a clue.

Show me where the Acting status changes or impacts the Principle Roles requirement. It doesn't and nobody with a brain would think it would or should. Trump would at least have a leg to stand on if he had not made such a brazen choice.

Here is the language you are referring to:
3)notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct an officer or employee of such Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity, subject to the time limitations of section 3346, if—

See anything about the Principle Roles Requirement in there? Would have been easy to write it in if they wanted it there. Items 1 and 2 directly speak to succession. So its not in there either. You would not expect to find it there. But here, in item 3, you would expect to find it if that was the intent.
 

Bullseye

Fund police; Defund the politicians
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
33,508
Reaction score
11,151
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I thought you said FOX. Just because there's an 'x' in there name doesn't mean they are the same.

Your link also says:

2. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 allows the president to choose any senior DOJ official to serve as an acting attorney general as long as that person has already served in a high-level position for 90 days. Whitaker qualifies for the temporary position under this Act.
There have been arguments on both sides over whether the act supplants the AG succession law, John Bies, former deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel, told Axios.
"I think it’s pretty clear under the terms of the statute itself that [Trump] has authority ... to appoint someone who is a senior DOJ official," he said.
"The Vacancy Act has precedence [over the Succession Act] when the president picks someone under that procedure," another DOJ lawyer texted us
.
 

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
9,400
Reaction score
4,220
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Reports state that the “acting appointment” works for seven months. Much can happen in seven months, both in litigation and the Mueller probe.....

Actually from what I just heard, that for the principle position, and the AG is one, even for a Temp they have to have been confirmed by the Senate for some position. They can be from any other principle position that has been confirmed by the Senate, but they have had to be confirmed by the Senate for a position even to hold the position of AG as a temp.
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
37,631
Reaction score
24,097
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually from what I just heard, that for the principle position, and the AG is one, even for a Temp they have to have been confirmed by the Senate for some position. They can be from any other principle position that has been confirmed by the Senate, but they have had to be confirmed by the Senate for a position even to hold the position of AG as a temp.



Trump TV calls bull****! You know that’s bad......

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/napolitano-whitaker-watergate-laws/2018/11/08/id/889956/
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
37,631
Reaction score
24,097
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I thought you said FOX. Just because there's an 'x' in there name doesn't mean they are the same.

Your link also says:
Didn’t catch “FOX” in your request, see post 24, sorry for the confusion......
 
Top Bottom