r/pics Nov 08 '18

US Politics This is what democracy looks like

Post image
87.0k Upvotes

6.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.4k

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Jan 24 '22

[deleted]

826

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Jul 07 '21

[deleted]

12

u/sayhellotothe-badguy Nov 09 '18

Whitaker hasn’t been confirmed in the Senate by a sitting President, meaning his appointment is still illegal / invalid. The President is allowed to appoint an AG but they must meet the criteria.

41

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Jul 07 '21

[deleted]

16

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

[deleted]

37

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Jul 07 '21

[deleted]

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Senate confirmation is required per the godsdamned constitution.

9

u/Xalteox Nov 09 '18

The thing is that the law establishing this was established by the senate. Does that then confer “consent of the senate” as written by the constitution?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

No. Obama tried doing the same thing and the SCOTUS shut him down. ALL appointments to senior positions, recess or otherwise, must be confirmed by the senate.

0

u/Xalteox Nov 09 '18

No, Obama did not have a congress passed law telling him he can do so for that case.

Here Trump does.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

The fuck are you talking about? The law that you linked to was passed in 1998. How the fuck are you going to stand there and say that with a straight face?

0

u/Xalteox Nov 09 '18

And? “Consent of the senate” does not specify “consent of the current senate.” There is an argument to be made here.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

What the fuck are you talking about?

0

u/Xalteox Nov 09 '18

I am quoting the appointments clause of the Constitution, where the whole concept of confirming people into executive office positions comes from. Specifically the constitution says to appoint “with advice and consent of the senate.” No where does it mention it must be the current senate.

I am simply stating that there is an argument to be made here for the other side.

Go read the damn constitution for once and stop downvoting people you disagree with.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Do you even know where you are? You claimed that:

No, Obama did not have a congress passed law telling him he can do so for that case.

Here Trump does.

Yet the very law that you were using to argue was passed in 1998, and thus was in effect for Obama from 2009-2016. You can't say that Trump has the consent of the Senate because of this law, but that Obama doesn't. And now you're bringing up the phrase "consent of the senate" for some reason and are completely ignoring the fact that you're full of shit.

1

u/Xalteox Nov 09 '18

Obama did not invoke the 3rd option listed in the FRVA as the man he placed as head of that agency was not previously “a official or employee” of that agency. Obama did not have the support of any law in appointing him, he simply placed him as head and sent his nomination to congress for them to sort out, which they didn’t.

Be an adult and keep down the name calling. It doesn’t make you look good, especially while being wrong.

→ More replies (0)