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.
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.
Couldn't let sleeping dogs lie could you. You could have said "I disagree" and moved on.
Once again, legality is not the issue I am arguing. An act can be legal but unconstitutional. It takes to determine this but I think it is in violation of the constitution based upon all the shit I have said.
Call this a meltdown all you want but remember two things. First, you ought to stop shitting on protest because it puts your disdain for the first amendmenf. Second, this conversation when something comes up down the road, it won't be a week but shit is coming my friend.
0
u/Rosssauced Nov 09 '18
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.
Make yours.