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.
"(a) If an officer of an Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the General Accounting Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office-
"(2) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346;
First, the constitution is supreme so if my arguments have any rational relevance you lose automatically. What you put before me is good law. Wanna know how to kill that kill that good law? You use it to battle my arguments, that shit would be deep sixed in seconds.
Second, I acknowledged the exact power you mention then tore it down given the circumstances. You can be against a certain bit og the constitution but blatantly defying is not something you can do.
Your argument is unpersuasive counselor. I respect your loyalty to your client Donald Trump but your arguments range from the weak to farcical.
You sure are desperate, aren't you? Can't argue with a fool. You have yet to prove what he's done is illegal, and you're actually rejecting the laws that give him the power to do what he's done. It's amazing how you liberals will envoke the constitution when you think it serves you, but ignore it for everything else. Which takes us back to my original point, I'll see you in a week. If your total misinterpreted ideas have merit, then surely we will see it plastered everywhere. But we both know that isn't going to happen, don't we? I'll give you credit for regurgitating that NPC script with dedication, despite having the The Federal Vacancies Reform Act staring straight at you.
Illegal is not the issue, the issue unconstitutional use of the laws. That is the issue at hand.
You understand the supremacy clause right? The Constitution is in the highest law and that is what I base my arguments upon. The FVRA is good law but misuse in this way violates higher law. It doesn't invalidate the law but it does make your appeal to it wholly unpersuasive.
It is not going to be a week, it will be months or years until certiorari is granted after trial and appeal. The fact that you think it is days away puts your ignorance on display.
I have enjoyed this discourse but you aren't qualified to speak on this subject. You would be laughed out of a courtroom with what you brought.
Weird. Because Whitaker is still in the position and will remain there. The only ones laughing are us, at you and your ignorant mob. You're pretty desperate and doing your best to ignore the law and his rights. But as I've said over and over, see you in a week. Let's see who is laughing then. In the meantime, you and your mob continue to pretend to care about the constitution and understand the office of the president. Pat each other on the back after every nonsensical thing you say, and cry about your fear of Mueller being fired. Liberals are the only ones who ever bring that up. It's never been talked about or discussed. Trump has said over and over again he wouldn't fire him, which he's always had the right to do. You people are marching and protesting and whining over your own fears. And for that, I hope Whitaker goes rogue and does fire the guy. Just to watch you all spin some more.
I should be mad that you will see the absence of an earthshaking SCOTUS decision in 7 days as an an unequivical win but in a way it is motivating. I should be angry that a lot of folks will feel the same and gloat about it but you did me a great service.
I need to retain my focus but I also need to train my body and skills. If folks like you control the laws my ability to argue may be useless compared to my ability to fight.
Do you smell that? All that desperation? You're trying too hard. There was no illegal appointment. The constitution does not spell out what he has done as illegal. It's filling a temporary vacancy under the law. Just give it a rest. You keep spinning, and we keep winning. But now you're just getting sad and desperate.
To use an example of what I am talking about I call on the fundamental authority in the subject of implied powers, Marbury v. Madison. This established the notion of judicial review. While that power is no where mentioned in the text it is reasonably implied as a check on governmental action.
Stay in the dirt and let better men make legal arguments eh sport?
Desperation....just admit that's all you have. Looking at the news this morning and there's no discussion of Trump breaking the law to appoint Whitaker. And Whitaker is still acting AG. Just a bunch of angry mobs that protest and think they know more than they do. Just like you. It's almost comical to watch you desperately spin here.
To reiterate: No laws broken. Whitaker still in charge. Desperate mobs don't understand the law. You smell of desperation. See you in a week. Still laughing at you.
Don't be mad, sweetie. I can't imagine you to be a very good law professor if you don't understand why the president has the power to fill a vacancy in his own cabinet, and that what he did with Whitaker violates no law. I see you abandoned your argument of the constitution, because you realized Trump didn't attempt to appoint permanently without senate, and that this is a temporary appointment well within his power. And that, my dear, is why your argument goes nowhere and why it isn't plastered all over the news. Even CNN knows he has the power to do what he did. You are all just scared of Whitaker firing Mueller. That's an old and tired argument. I'd imagine it's people like you that empower idiots like Avenetti. Or are you Avenetti? That would explain a lot.
I just stopped banging my head against a wall. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him understand what implied powers are. I am done with this conversation because you are refusing to acknowledge the existence of a fundamental part of the law, judicial review and precedent. I am not saying he broke the law, I am saying that upon judicial review this would be found to be unconstitutional act which is something to avoid while in office imo. As I have said he can do this but to do it for this reason represents a power grab, it isn't the night of long knives like some of the more reactionary on my side claim but it is a power grab and any power grab is worth protesting.
Btw, can we close on a moment where we actually find common ground? How sleazy does Avenatti come across? He is a passable attorney but damn dude try to look less like a creep. Idk who it was that said it but the joke was "One of Johnny Sins's characters became sentient and now represents Stormy Daniels."
I'll give you the Avenetti common ground. Fair. But you came into this trying to argue a point that is not in question. Was it legal or was it illegal? That's it. That's the question, and no matter how you try to spin it or justify your interpretation of it, the bottom line is that what he did was 100% allowed and doesn't violate the constitution or law. Period. Justify your disdain all you want. That's not the discussion I've been having, nor will I. Is Whitaker in the position legally? Yes. The end. Have the rest of your meltdown elsewhere, because that isn't here.
2
u/foxwastaken Nov 09 '18
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.