I suspect Cannon’s decision will be overturned in the court of appeals, but instead of the Mueller case, will reach the Supremes where the final decision will come through. No more unlawful appointments. — NOS4A2

The Supreme Court already ruled on this in Morrison v. Olson.

Held:

It does not violate the Appointments Clause for Congress to vest the appointment of independent counsel in the Special Division.

Although admittedly the current court doesn't seem to give a damn about precedent. But as no justices concurred with Thomas's opinion on the matter in the recent immunity case, I doubt enough of them would even agree to hear it.

I think Trump's stance on China and hitting it with tariffs is the only correct stance. It's ridiculous to give an autocratic country that oppresses its own people this much economic power and influence over our own economies, which it only reaches because it's not playing by the same rules as we expect of our own businesses. — Benkei

Sure and Biden has sort of been doing that too but I'm not sure the unilateral way Trump did it was wise. He should've coordinated with other countries and worked out a plan but he's not a man who's known for that. Apparently for his next term, he plans to not only put major tariffs on China, but a global 10% tariff on all imported goods, which doesn't sound like a good idea and will probably worsen the inflation that people will vote him in for.

I think the West's stance on Ukraine is cowardly. If Ukraine is to join NATO and Russia basically (predictably) attacks it because of those NATO statements, they should bear the consequences of those statements. Letting Ukrainians die and not being prepared to actually risk our own people is horrible. And if we're not prepared to stand up for our own security, we shouldn't antagonised Russia. Who knows what Trump would've done but it hardly could've been more callous than what happened now. — Benkei

I'd support sending them weapons as long to defend themselves as they work out a peace plan, which unfortunately doesn't seem like what the Biden administration is doing (though I can't say I'm aware of what kind of talks are being had behind the scenes). It just seems inevitable that this whole war will end up with Russia not taking over all of Ukraine, Ukraine not taking back Crimea, Ukraine not joining NATO (which could be used as a bargaining chip, and whatever negotiated settlement being determined along the Donbas region.

Although people keep saying that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president, I honestly feel like the opposite is true. Trump is an isolationist who has bad ties with NATO and a bad history with Ukraine's president, so it's not hard to see that Putin would have an easier time if he were in power, and probably sort of bet on him being reelected in 2020 as part of his plans. As for what Trump would do if he got back in power, he'd probably force a peace deal on Ukraine which I support though it's what follows and how this relates to the situation in Taiwan I'm not as sure about.

Not saying you have to agree with this assessment: but preferring Trump (or GOP) over Biden isn't the insanity people like to pretend it is. — Benkei

No, no, I can certainly see why his America First policies are appealing to people, especially in the aftermath of the interventionist and globalist policies of previous administrations. The problem is that he's an idiot so he doesn't really know what he's doing half the time. He pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal and then tried to do make a similar agreement with North Korea for instance.

I still think he should be in jail as well for J6. — Benkei

Well he's gonna be king now, because the Democrats like in 2016 are too incompetent, arrogant, and anti-democratic to mount an effective challenger. And by "Democrats" I really just mean the handful of people in leadership, not the voters who never had a say in nominating an 81 year old man, the majority of whom thought was too old.

“Congress may grant authority to the judicial branch to appoint independent counsel without violating the separation of powers, even though the independent counsel are members of the executive branch.”

I’m not sure it applies because Smith wasn’t appointed by the judicial branch.

You need to read more than just the opening sentence.

It points out that by the very wording of the Appointments Clause, "Congress may by law invest the appointment of 'inferior' officers to the President alone, or to courts of law or heads of departments."

It then explains that a special counsel is an "inferior" officer.

So it finds that the Appointments Clause allows for Congress to "invest the appointment of [a special counsel] to the President alone, or to courts of law or heads of departments".

[removed mistaken reference to CFR 600]

The relevant law in Morrison was the Independent Counsel Act, which expired in 1999. CFR means federal regulations. Regulations are not statutes. Judge Cannon notes there is no such statute that exists today, nor was there one when Garland appointed Smith.

CFR means federal regulations. Regulations are not statutes. — NOS4A2

Thanks for the correction. Reading through the order it was actually 509, 510, 515, and 533 that were cited by Garland when appointing Smith. 510 and 515 are the basis for establishing 28 CFR 600.

Relevant to this is United States v. Short, 1956 by the 9th Circuit:

An administrative regulation promulgated within the authority granted by statute has the force of law and will be given full effect by the courts.

Since 1999 when the Independent Counsel Act expired, all of the above is likely what has been used to defend the constitutionality of special councils, e.g. here where the DC Circuit unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of Mueller's appointment.

So again, I expect the 11th Circuit to overturn Cannon's anomalous order.

Cannon is just an idiot. Or corrupt. Or a corrupt idiot. — Michael

:up:

I vote corrupt idiot — as most Trump appointees are.

Is this something that just occurred to Cannon or was just brought to her attention or ...?

Judge Cannon by now has a long history of questionable decisions in that case, most of which seem to have leaned towards the defendants. This dismissal is the capstone of those earlier decisions. It was her response to a motion to dismiss by the defendant. It is being said that the Department of Justice will appeal, but you can bet your boots that if Trump wins in November, this and all the other legal actions against Trump will go away, as he's obviously been betting on. If he looses, we guess that there'll be an appeals process, but it will take years, as always. And such an apparently open and shut case!



But then, the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity is being practically interpreted by Trump as an affirmation of what he's always believed, and what his followers believe - that he's above the law. An emperor, not an elected official.

Justice Thomas wrote a separate bit in the recent immunity decision aimed at Special Counsels and Cannon received the lateral pass and ran with it.

She is very open to new ideas.

and you hit a member of a militia group — Paine

That is not a good thing though.

Nor are your comparisons. I was employing sarcastic irony.

Nor are your comparisons — Paine

Comparisons are not a "good thing or not", they are either true or not. And my comparison is true.

Wow. Or maybe whoa. A true believer emerges. I will leave you to your own devices.

I had a divine call from the heavens. No one can stop this bullet now.

Trump is a cynical asshole— America’s Hitler, really. Anyone who votes for him is an idiot.

Can I be Vice President now?

Well well well, Trump appears messianic at this point. Frankly he is becoming the right's Jesus figure.

Frankly he is becoming the right's Jesus figure. — Shawn

Oh definitely. It’s basically more powerful than the church at this point.

Years of priming believers for unquestioning loyalty — in the church, but also in sports fanaticism, the WWE, country music, conservatives talk radio (Rush Limbaugh et al), Fox News — has coalesced into what you see today.

Have you hand it to Trump and his base: they toughed it out and took over one of the two business parties. Now, thanks to Democrats, they have the chance to do even more damage for 4 years.

We’re not a bright country.

Less talked about was when Trump rid the GOP of their anti-gay stance, their homophobia, which for me was a pivotal realignment of that party’s social conservatism and neocon agenda into the more libertarian spirit we see today. — NOS4A2

Yes, good point. And he's softened on the abortion issue. He says to leave it up to the states. That's upsetting some hard core pro-lifers, but where are they going to go?

Trump's a New York city builder. He's been dealing with people from every walk of life and every socioeconomic level for decades. He didn't become a "racist" till he ran against Hillary. Before that, the Clintons came to his (third) wedding. Maureen Dowd wrote about When Hillary and Donald Were Friends.

“Yeah, I guess so,” Trump said in the fall of 2002 when asked by Stern if he supported an invasion. “You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

He's singing a different tune now, of course. But if you're going to call out the NYTimes for what they were saying back then, what's good for the goose... — RogueAI

The difference is that the NYT always supports the warmongers. Trump's off that train.

What was the worst thing Trump did while he was president, in your opinion? — RogueAI

Choosing Pence. Choosing all the disloyal people he did. Being so pathetically ignorant of how the government works and what a pile of snakes DC was that he just got rolled by the bureaucrats and deep staters. Giving in to the worst of the covid authoritarianism, though by then I don't think he had much choice. These are political or tactical mistakes. Off the top of my head I can't think of any particular policy I didn't like. Toss me out some egregious examples, I'm sure he must have done something I didn't like at the time.

Firing Comey, which by then everyone in Washington favored, but then the next day inartfully saying it was because of his own legal issues. That sent the left into a feeding frenzy. If he's just shut up, nobody would have complained. They all hated Comey for sinking Hillary at the end. So in general, being his own worst enemy. Saying things they could use against him.

But like I say, remind me of what I might have forgotten. Every time they called him Hitler, I'd think, "I'll reserve judgment to see if he invades Poland." He never did. Nor did he invade anywhere else. That overrides almost anything bad he might have done. If you'll just remind me what you think I should object to. You might remember something I didn't.

A provocative question: Why do you support the "cause of peace"? Not why were the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan wrong, but why is peace, generally, the most important consideration? — Echarmion

Most important, all things being equal. There might have been a good war among all the bad ones. WWII gets credited with being a war that needed to be fought. Maybe the last one. Most of the others have been gravy train operations for the military-industrial complex, which has had Washington by the throat since WWII. JFK turned toward peace, but the MIC didn't take kindly to that. Or else there was a lone nut and the MIC just got lucky, as they so often do.

Why peace? Because people living together harmoniously despite their differences, engaging in free trade and the free exchange of ideas, is better than tearing each other limb from limb every time they have a difference of opinion or a difference of interest. As JFK said at American University on June 10, 1963, five and a half months before his assassination:

So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

That's why.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any particular policy I didn't like. — fishfry

Wow.

Wow. — Mikie

I did invite the person who asked to remind me of incidents or policies I'd forgotten. It's possible. I give you the same invitation. I didn't like Trump's tariffs, that's one that just came to mind. I'm more of a free trader. I didn't approve of the massive tax cut combined with a massive spending bill, that primed the pump for Biden's inflation to follow. Trump's no fiscal conservative.

I'm more of a free trader. — fishfry

Well the Trump cult does love their delusions.

Is there anything sadder than a draft dodger posing as a tough guy?

Yes. People who think you should go to war because the government tells them to.

Yes. People who think you should go to war because the government tells them to. — NOS4A2

Trump is against the draft? I know he's against drafting himself, but I haven't heard a peep from him about changing our draft policy.

What draft policy would that be?