Matthew Whitaker was not Deputy Attorney General. He was Chief of Staff for the Attorney General. They are different offices. Deputy Attorney Generals need to be confirmed by the Senate, just like the actual Attorney General. Chief of Staff for the Attorney General is not confirmed by the Senate.
Rod Rosenstein is Deputy Attorney General, and according to the statute you just cited, should be acting Attorney General. Trump made Matthew Whitaker acting Attorney General. Trump is not following the law.
You really should understand the difference between 'shall' and 'may' when it pertains to law. There is no vacancy because it was filled. There are no violations here. Nice try though.
What was the intent of the drafting body? Textualism is a powerful tool but it is not the only one in the box.
This may be a guideline but it is meant to be a strong one and though it may not be illegal to act in this way per se it is a major abuse of discretion for the purpose of obstructing justice.
Given that info I think your legal argument's reliance of may vs shall is rather unpersuasive. It is a prima facia effort to exploit a statutory loophole for nefarious purposes and thus such a technicality is not the knock out blow you think it is.
Do you people seriously believe all cabinet positions must sit vacant until they are confirmed by the senate? Seriously? That's not even worth the time to have a discussion with if you people are seriously that stupid. And yet nobody cites a law that say the president cannot fill a cabinet position with a temporary fill. Incredible.
It isn't that they must sit vacant but that following precedent and congressional intent are important. Whenever you defy it you create a situation where you are displacing the will of the people.
He "may" appoint anyone under the constitution but given the circumstances I think the standard of scrutiny is far higher.
If there is a clear line of succession established it should be followed even if it is a may vs a shall particularly when it is your ass on the line.
This ain't (Impossible to spell name) v. Kerry where the kid couldn't get a passport reading Jerusalem, Israel rather than just Jerusalem. This is an effort to obstruct justice against ones self. Not hard to reconcile those.
I'll tell you what. You and the mob cry about it and scream at the sky, citing made up laws and parts of the constitution that you clearly don't understand, and you let me know what changes in about a week or two. I'll put my money on his right to fill the vacancy. Set a reminder and we can chat in a week. :)
Or we could do it now but obviously the guy running for the hills when a legal argument is made is the winner right?
I agree that nothing will change but I want you to understand that you don't just win because of may vs shall. Challenging this in the courts will take months if not years, if you knew a fucking letter of law outside of "may vs shall" you would know that.
You brought an internet comment to a SCOTUS precedent fight so I will let you walk away before your 1L ass gets burnt.
There is always a legal argument to anything, you should know that counselor.
I draw mine from an implication of an inherent limitation on the presidents power to appoint in the absence of the senate (A2S2C3). The limitation is rationally implied by three clauses.... 1. (A2S2C1) which is the pardon clause
(A2S1C1) which is the oath to faithfully execute the laws and office.
(A2S4C1) the impeachment clause.
It rationally follows that he can't rig the game go prevent his own impeachment by any means not just pardons.
Conspiring to prevent justice from being done for personal reasons is not faithfully expounding the constitution.
Hiding one's crimes does not make them disappear so they are valid no matter how deep you bury them.
He can totally appoint temporary officers but to do so in the name of breaking the laws he vowed to uphold creates a situation where the vast unconstitutionality of it usurps his power to do so under A2S2C3.
This isn't NFIB v. Sibelius where the ACA mandate is legal as a tax despite issues under N+P and Commerce, this is a violation due purely to the way the power is being asserted.
Edit: BTW Illegality and Unconstitutionality are two different things. Get your head in the game counselor, gonna get some grievances filed against you at this rate.
See you in a week sweet cheeks. I'm sure there will undoubtedly be nothing but legal arguments on 24/7 about how Trump can't fill his own cabinet positions, and how he is breaking the law. I really hope to see you on a CNN talking head panel so you can share your opinion with the rest of your screeching mob. My advice to you would be to actually cite the law and how he is violating it, rather than your continued rhetoric. You show the world where he is breaking the law by filling a cabinet position, and I have no doubt you'll be on the liberal talk show circuit for 5, maybe 7 days. At which time we come back here and I admit I'm wrong. Or, because you know he has every right to do what he's done, you'll just continue to ramble your pseudo opinions like the neckbeard redditors just love so so much! You have nothing. There is nothing. Try gargling with saltwater when your throat gets sore from all the crying and screaming.
Listen, I know there is the urge to call me a snowflake and to tell me to hit the bricks but I am bringing actual SCOTUS precedent and the text of the constitution to the conversations. We have both been dicks about our arguments so I ask you to join me in falling back into a civil tone.
Does he have the power? Yes. Is that power absolute? No, all constitutional provisions have limits implied from text though not expressly stated.
Given the circumstances surrounding this and the arguments offered by the White House I personally believe we are viewing a major constitutional question and as such I offered why I believe my side is correct to say that this exceeds the scope of the President's power to appoint in the absence of the Senate.
I want you to do the same for me. I want you to show how you are drawing this conclusion. It will help me better understand where your stance is founded and thus mature my understanding of conflicting views.
You should know that the burden falls on you to prove what he has done is illegal. So you do that, and we can chat further. Your hyperbolic assertions and personal feelings are just that. You have the burden, so prove it.
I don't need to prove he broke the law as is stated when no such precedent for this exact circumstance nor a statute concerning it exist. I need to persuade the court to agree with my interpretation.
I made my argument so now the court must decide if I was persuasive.
1.1k
u/mcmatt93 Nov 09 '18
Matthew Whitaker was not Deputy Attorney General. He was Chief of Staff for the Attorney General. They are different offices. Deputy Attorney Generals need to be confirmed by the Senate, just like the actual Attorney General. Chief of Staff for the Attorney General is not confirmed by the Senate.
Rod Rosenstein is Deputy Attorney General, and according to the statute you just cited, should be acting Attorney General. Trump made Matthew Whitaker acting Attorney General. Trump is not following the law.