zeke5123a
1d ago
No—there is a difference between refusing to bring someone up for a vote and voting no.
zeke5123a
1d ago
You are missing the point.
The senate cares about the blue slip. They don’t like Habba enough to end the blue slip tradition.
That’s a different question compared to “would the Senate advance Habba if she received the blue slip.”
You are conflating the Senate desire to respect the blue slip with the Senate rejection of Habba.
zeke5123a
2d ago
That’s fallacious. The senate supports blue slip and thinks that is worth. That is a different question compared to whether the senate is or is not favoring of confirming Halligan or Habba.
And if you severe (d), there really isn’t a strong argument that the office remains vacant. Maybe you can’t reappoint the same person but nothing in the text suggests the president cannot appoint someone.
zeke5123a
2d ago
No it “exists” based upon your errant reading of an ambiguous text taken out of context.
Do you believe there is a police power? It isn’t stated anywhere in the text!
zeke5123a
2d ago
I think your view of judicial supremacy is very challenging one that goes back to the founding. It isn’t even necessarily wrong but a challenging question.
zeke5123a
2d ago
That is just wrong on many points.
First, unitary executive isn’t based solely (or primarily) on the appointments clause but on the theory that the constitution says the executive power is vested in the president.
This was then further explained in the federalist papers.
Second, textualism in constitutional Interpretation is quite dangerous given that (1) constitutions tend to be less built out compared to legislation and (2) they assume fluency with the political backdrop of the late 1700s.
While the text is obviously important, it is necessary to interpret in light of the broader context. The constitution was clearly setting up a system of divided government contrary to the experience under your country’s rule.
Each branch has some power but the idea is that other branches could check them given the divided power.
Inferior officers are of course necessary to carry out the power vested in each branch. So why after setting up a tripartite form of government, would the constitution allow for example courts to appoint all of the inferior officers of the executive? Or, if we are to believe your theory, the constitution permits Congress to vest appointing inferior officers of both the executive and the judicial in say the the head of HHS. So despite making the executive power vested in the president and the judicial power in the courts, the head of HHS is the person who actually gets to choose who the core people in those regimes are therefore making the president and judges basically subsidiary to the head of HHS.
That’s clearly absurd and inconsistent with the context. The more natural therefore construction is that Congress can choose how inferior officers are picked by the president within the executive, or the judges within Art III, or department heads within their department. That is, it’s implied even if it stated.
zeke5123a
2d ago
As I point out above, it is a district judge. So it isn’t like an SVP but bottom of the chain employee of a different division.
zeke5123a
2d ago
And it was a really shitty analogy. Besides there not really being a company structured like the federal government, in this case there was a department lead that said “you are still employed” and a junior person in a different department said “nope you are fired.”
Now maybe Rov made an innocent mistake but I think he is trying to stack the deck because of his political leaning.
zeke5123a
3d ago
It is a vexing problem. But rendering something arguably deadwood appears better than just creating out of whole cloth a power that doesn’t exist.
Of course, there is nuance to this debate. Trump is of course happy to bring his AUSA up for a vote. Probably would pass given R majority. The key missing point is that the Dems are blocking due to Senate custom.
So what you want is a situation where the power of executive is removed from the president and granted to a judge in a situation where a minority of Senators block advice and consent. That makes less than zero sense in the context of Art II, Art III, and the nature of advice and consent.
So I think you have it pretty much backwards. Yes there is a risk on a president abusing the provision, but there is also a risk of a minority in the senate abusing the provision if your read is correct. It seems like the right way to think of this is if the president is willing to put forth a candidate but the senate refuses to vote, then the president can make that person an interim AUSA. If the Senate votes and refuses consent, then the president has to start again.
This avoids the pitfall you are worried about without upending the entire constitutional order and again policing bad actors in the senate.
And this is about more than the authority of a single AUSA. This is a question of who controls the executive.
Finally, do you have a citation for most indictments being brought by court appointed AUSAs?
zeke5123a
3d ago
-
The statutory text you cite is likely unconstitutional as Prof Calabresi argues since the power to appoint executive officers is vested solely within the president or department heads. Therefore a textual analysis is arguably besides the point.
-
The provision you mention under (d) is a may; not a shall. So it doesn’t seem like the power is wrested from the executive.
Calabresi is making the argument that the same person can be given connective 120 day appointments. But it’s even a stronger argument that different persons can be given consecutive 120 day terms (ie the president or AG doesn’t lose the power to make the appointment).
Otherwise, you permit a small minority in the senate to give unfettered executive power to a judge allowing him to appoint an AUSA within his district. That doesn’t make sense in light of our checks and balances.
Therefore at minimum a constitutional avoidance reading should apply to state that the executive can appoint a second person to the office. He did so here.
zeke5123a
3d ago
zeke5123a
3d ago
There is a real question about separation of powers where the court appoints an executive officer.
zeke5123a
3d ago
This just seems crazy. Obama retaliated against law firms. Law firms were attacked for filing 2020 election cases. Musk was attacked (eg FCC cancelled grants re Starlink even though Starlink by far was better than other options not cancelled or the DOJ tried to claim worker discrimination for not hiring foreigners even though they were obliged not to do so) by Biden shortly after buying Twitter.
So I think your facts are just wrong.
zeke5123a
7d ago
I’m not sure they believe the orders are illegal. They think they are getting political currency out of #resisting and this is another way to show they are #resisting.
zeke5123a
19d ago
The world has gotten in one part more complex but in another smaller. The Internet has homogenized the world turning foreign places into America lite.
Diversity may not be our strength but it added a richness (ie you could see how different people live). That is now lacking.
zeke5123a
20d ago
Or look at the Twitter - Biden laptop scandal. The IC spent months “prebunking” a story they knew was true so when it came out social media would take it down. We know because Musk bought Twitter.
zeke5123a
21d ago
Is this true in the real sense? How much of Obama’s deportations were at the border?
zeke5123a
21d ago
If one wanted to be catty like you, one could point out that we have an emotional absurd response asserting a position specifically refuted by OP.
zeke5123a
28d ago
I think you are making a bad distinction. What someone would be charged with is somewhat orthogonal to whether a person has reasonable fear of material harm to limb or life.
And honestly crim law is a mess in that the same action can result in wildly different outcomes (eg Persons A and B can shoot C and D respectively. C could live but D dies. It isn’t obvious that A deserves a lesser sentence compared to B). Why demand consistency between self defense claims and how someone would be charged?
zeke5123a
30d ago
No, the question for self defense is not whether you are perfectly proportional with your defense but whether you have a reasonable belief your attacker may seriously harm or potentially kill you. Once you do that, you ca. use lethal force while the threat remains.
Because you seem to be conflating “wont vote due to custom” v “rejection on the merits.”
More options
Context Copy link