Tom Henderson

@pissvortex Yes, universities are open to a wide spectrum of viewpoints, all the way from A to B. Well, A to A prime, maybe.

I know you guys hate hearing this but universities are open to a wide spectrum of viewpoints. Conservatives are just rarely capable of writing at an academically acceptable level. Sorry man. Stop begging for DEI hires

@ProfMJCleveland Don't forget "Gestapo."

Every politician who has called ICE lawless or criminals or the like needs to be called out for their lies.

@PamPalmerJD @kyledcheney Of course not! ("... tossing gold bars off the Titanic ...") Who would ever do that? I believe we can all rest assured that every grant ever given was deserving and ENTIRELY non-political.

@tom__henderson @kyledcheney Grants have NEVER been POLITICIZED from one Administration to the next.

JUST IN: A federal judge rules that agencies can't cut previously awarded grants based on a new president's changing priorities. Those priorities can only be applied on a forward-looking basis, she says. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

@BocaDuk3 @shipwreckedcrew Probably not as long as they get positive life affirmation by "standing up" to the Trump administration.

@shipwreckedcrew At some point these Deranged Judges gotta get tired of being overturned, no?

I was going to look up the Judge to see the President who made the appointment. Then I saw the caption was the Northern District of California. I realized that all 14 District Judges in the NDCA were appointed by Obama or Biden. ALL 14. Let's see how her TRO holds up in the Ninth with DOJ saying there is no Clayton Act violation in the merger.

@ferdydurking @ilan_wurman Nice try. Veto power is directly in the Constitution. As is the vesting of all executive power in the president. Prosecution is an executive power, not a judicial one.

@tom__henderson @ilan_wurman Letting presidents have veto power can create mischief and undermine the legislative branch. Why allow it? It’s called checks and balances. If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution.

The common law maxim “he who appoints also removes” may answer this question. It’s the maxim that allows Congress to vest the appointment of inferior officers in the department heads, and it is those department heads who have the power to remove the inferiors. If Congress vests the appointment of an executive officer in the court, the common law rule suggests that removal would come with it. And I doubt anyone thinks that the court would allow judges to have removal authority over Executive officers. Which leads to the conclusion that the appointment likely does not make constitutional sense.

@3_inaBar @jwludwig @shipwreckedcrew The lawfare was one attempt after another to find legal actions and allege improper intent or motivation to make it illegal. And frankly, embarrassing. The American people looked at the lawfare and laughed at the claims of crimes. And then voted for the man they targeted.

@tom__henderson @jwludwig @shipwreckedcrew No, he committed crimes. Grow up.

US Attorneys execute the enforcement priorities set by the Administration. They do no execute the priorities of the District Judges. What is likely to happen in the future is the statute is going to be changed to remove U.S. Attorneys from the list of positions that require Senate confirmation. Opposition party Senators are simply refusing to participate in the process and leaving the positions open as a tactic, followed by Judges of similar political persuasions to appoint U.S. Attorney's not acceptable to the White House. So they get fired. There is no end game to his problem.

@realmattcloud But appointments by judges were justified as analogous to appointments by EXECUTIVE dept head, who reports to the president and can be overruled/fired by him. So not analogous to judges at all. Expect the president to keep firing them until the courts quit living in denial.

@realmattcloud Nope. I'm accepting arguendo that US Attys are inferior officers, (I suspect the primary reason to classify them as inferior officers was to justify letting courts appoint them, but that's a separate topic.)

1/ I didn't cite Morrison. But if you want to discuss that case we can. The Independent Counsel statute is the problem in that case, it is sui generis (SEILA LAW LLC notwithstanding), and the problem lies there, not in the appointment of U.S. attorneys. Scalia did not think

@realmattcloud You're trying to distinguish by arguing that the independent counsel was different because he was not inferior, but the relevant part is that he was not appointed by the president or subject to him. Separation of powers was the problem, same as here. Nice try, though.

2/ the independent counsel was "inferior." His dissent rests on that. "The independent counsel," he wrote, "was not even subordinate to the president." No one is proposing such an arrangement here. And anyway, this thread was about the principle of the narrow and explicit

You're really citing Morrison v Olson for support? Technically, it hasn't been overruled, but Scalia's dissent is pretty much embraced by all three branches of govt now. If the issue ever comes back to SCOTUS, expect Morrison v Olson to be treated like Dred Scott or Plessy: yet another case where SCOTUS decides a past decision was wrong and the dissent was right.

@John_Q_Skeptic @mike_frags Holy Shit. There's even a latin phrase on this. "Generalia specialibus non derogant" (the specific prevails over the general).

Judge Selya on the constitutional questions presented by judicial appointment: 1/3 Because United States Attorneys are inferior officers, Congress as a theoretical matter can entrust their appointment to the President, the head of a department, or the courts of law, without requiring Senate confirmation. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2; see also Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 397-98 (1879) (holding that the Constitution contains no flat prohibition against interbranch appointments). We say "theoretical" because Congress's ability to choose among these three options is limited by the separation-of-powers principle. The Constitution establishes three coequal branches of government, and the doctrine of separated powers serves to eliminate arrangements that threaten to permit one branch either to aggrandize its power or to encroach on functions reserved for another branch. See Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 381-82 (1989). In this instance, Congress chose to place the appointing power vis-a-vis interim United States Attorneys partially in the judiciary. See 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). If authorizing judges to make such appointments is incongruous with the appointers' judicial duties or unduly interferes with the proper functioning of the Executive Branch, any appointments so made would be null and void. See Morrison, 487 U.S. at 675-76;Siebold, 100 U.S. at 398.

@jwludwig @shipwreckedcrew Did you ever criticize the Biden admin for his corrupt and vindictive -- and entirely political -- lawfare against Trump? If not, then yours is not a statement of principle so much as a statement of hatred for the current president.

No. AGs and prosecuting attorneys are supposed to seek justice with impartial prosecutions. As attorneys, they have ethical obligations not to seek indictments unless they possess evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They are NOT supposed to go on witch hunts to satisfy a corrupt and vindictive president. They have to have some independence from the president or resign as their professional ethics require.

@ilan_wurman That means the president can fire both appointee AND appointer if he doesn't like those appointments. Presidents can't fire judges, so ... not at all the same. Letting judges make executive appointments can create mischief and undermine the executive branch. Why allow it?

@ilan_wurman SCOTUS allows this by arguing US Attys are "inferior" officers, and the president can always fire them, like a dept head appointing an inferior officer. But that's not the same. A dept head is part of the executive branch, and the president can fire the appointer also.

@ProfMJCleveland Hilarious. I mean, there's a double standard all right, but to suggest it's to Trump's benefit is the funniest thing I've heard today.

Classic case of a person being right for the wrong reasons.

@MrColton @shipwreckedcrew The Senate AS A WHOLE has the role of advice and consent -- not just a couple of home-state Senators. The courts have a separate role. This is not part of it. This was an accommodation to keep the gears turning in the courts, but that can be withdrawn if abused like this.

@tom__henderson @shipwreckedcrew or force the president to work with the senate and courts. the president doesn’t have plenary authority in this matter

@shipwreckedcrew All of this could be avoided of course if the courts and Senate stopped trying to undermine the separation of powers.

@dilanesper You're right about one thing, though. The controversy is a "window," but into the left and their constant attempts to game the system so they can ignore Constitutional limits when the president is from the "wrong" party.

i think the controversy over US attorneys is a kind of window into the legal right's soul. It's common sense why neither the Constitution nor Congress goes full unitary executive on appointments of prosecutors. Prosecutors aren't supposed to prosecute anyone POTUS wants to.

@dilanesper Prosecutors operate according to law, and prosecutions are done in courts. That's the only (limited) "independence" from the President. But the President's job is to enforce the law, and that absolutely includes direction/control of prosecutors. Judges must respect that power.