Thomas questions Smiths appointment

[TroglocratsRdumb]

MSN

Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment would stand up to constitutional muster Monday in a concurring opinion to the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.

The high court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity for “official acts” in a case stemming from an indictment secured by Smith over his efforts to contest the 2020 election. In an opinion concurring with the decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, Thomas took aim at the appointment of Smith, citing provisions of Article II of the Constitution.

“I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure,” Thomas wrote. “In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”

“By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure,” Thomas continued. “If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”

Comment:
Garland did not get Senate confirmation for Smith.
Everything that Smith has done might be invalid.
This is a huge blunder.
But we shall see how this all works out in the courts.

 

[okfine]

I question Thomas's appointment. What a disappointment he turned out to be. Biased and corrupt. The worse for a justice to be.

 

[BULLDOG]

I question Thomas's appointment. What a disappointment he turned out to be. Biased and corrupt. The worse for a justice to be.

The Supreme Court has become corrupt and partisan. Every four years, it's common to hear that the upcoming election is the most important one so far, but this time it might actually be true. We can survive crazies like MTG, but evil corrupt justices on the supreme court are doing more harm than just putting their thumbs on the sales of the political parties. They are laying the groundwork for a virtual king. That has to be stopped.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The Supreme Court has become corrupt and partisan. Every four years, it's common to hear that the upcoming election is the most important one so far, but this time it might actually be true. We can survive crazies like MTG, but evil corrupt justices on the supreme court are doing more harm than just putting their thumbs on the sales of the political parties. They are laying the groundwork for a virtual king. That has to be stopped.

Hysterical and wrong. The conservative majority is making rules based upon the Constitution rather than the socially PC ones made by the liberals. The law is not about feelings, or relativity, it’s about objective factual rulings. For the first time in over seventy years we have a SCOTUS that is following the rules.

 

[wamose]

When Democrats finally got to the point where the DOJ was their servant, they thought they had it all wrapped up. Then along came separation of powers and a return to our constitution. It's obvious that Democrats will try to dominate the SC just like they do the DOJ, totalitarian assholes that they are. MAGA

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I question Thomas's appointment. What a disappointment he turned out to be. Biased and corrupt. The worse for a justice to be.

So by what Law was Smith appointed?

You might not like Thomas but please have a valid response

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The conservative majority is making rules based upon the Constitution

can you point to the part of the Constitution that says the official actions of the POTUS are above the law?

I will be happy to wait.

 

[1srelluc]

can you point to the part of the Constitution that says the official actions of the POTUS are above the law?

I will be happy to wait.

There can only be examples, each judged on their own merit or lack thereof.....You know, what SCOTUS just ruled on.

Take Obama, he ordered the execution of an American citizen that he deemed a terrorist (which any reasonable person knew to be true) and when the drone dust cleared he had snuffed four American citizens.....All of whom deserve exactly what they got.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There can only be examples, each judged on their own merit or lack thereof.....You know, what SCOTUS just ruled on.

Take Obama, he ordered the execution of an American citizen that he deemed a terrorist (which any reasonable person knew to be true) and when the drone dust cleared he had snuffed four American citizens.....All of whom deserve exactly what they got.

We will never know for sure he was a terrorist, only that the Govt told us he was. And since Obama is immune for that actions, nobody will ever know.

But you do bring up a good point, with this power the POTUS can order the execution of an American citizen that he deemed a terrorist/threat to America and be above the law for doing so.

Perhaps Trump should hire extra security, Biden might get some ideas from this

 

[1srelluc]

We will never know for sure he was a terrorist, only that the Govt told us he was. And since Obama is immune for that actions, nobody will ever know.

But you do bring up a good point, with this power the POTSU can order the execution of an American citizen that he deemed a terrorist/threat to America and be above the law for doing so.

Perhaps Trump should hire extra security, Biden might get some ideas from this

Given the rabid TDS within dem ranks you might be correct.....After all, it's not like it's FJB who is running the country.

 

[Moonglow]

So dollars do represent free speech.

Hysterical and wrong. The conservative majority is making rules based upon the Constitution rather than the socially PC ones made by the liberals. The law is not about feelings, or relativity, it’s about objective factual rulings. For the first time in over seventy years we have a SCOTUS that is following the rules.

 

[Moonglow]

Yes, a

There can only be examples, each judged on their own merit or lack thereof.....You know, what SCOTUS just ruled on.

Take Obama, he ordered the execution of an American citizen that he deemed a terrorist (which any reasonable person knew to be true) and when the drone dust cleared he had snuffed four American citizens.....All of whom deserve exactly what they got.

A terrorist who left the US to take up arms against the US. Pathetic pissants like you who defend terrorist, terrorism and those who commit treason sicken me.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Given the rabid TDS within dem ranks you might be correct.....After all, it's not like it's FJB who is running the country.

And unless the Dems voted to Impeach, he would be immune for that action.

That is the power that was just handed to the president.

 

[AZrailwhale]

There can only be examples, each judged on their own merit or lack thereof.....You know, what SCOTUS just ruled on.

Take Obama, he ordered the execution of an American citizen that he deemed a terrorist (which any reasonable person knew to be true) and when the drone dust cleared he had snuffed four American citizens.....All of whom deserve exactly what they got.

Since when can American citizens be executed without a trial and guilty verdict?

 

[1srelluc]

Since when can American citizens be executed without a trial and guilty verdict?

I really don't have any answers for you other than there were acting with terrorists on foreign soil.

I'll say this....I'm not even mad, and I despise the Halfrican..

 

[AZrailwhale]

I really don't have any answers for you other than there were acting with terrorists on foreign soil.

I'll say this....I'm not even mad, and I despise the Halfrican..

I agree they were terrorists, but they still deserve a trial. I wouldn't mind a bit if Obama sent in the SEALs to kidnap them for a trial, or even held a trial in absentia. But what he did was illegal under US law.

 

[1srelluc]

I agree they were terrorists, but they still deserve a trial. I wouldn't mind a bit if Obama sent in the SEALs to kidnap them for a trial, or even held a trial in absentia. But what he did was illegal under US law.

They were not worth the cost of highly trained .mil personnel to get them.....IMHO they got what they deserved.

 

[AZrailwhale]

They were not worth the cost of highly trained .mil personnel to get them.....IMHO they got what they deserved.

Even the worst criminal deserves a fair trial. Tokyo Rose was thought to be a willing collaborator and she was given a fair trial although in later years the witnesses called by the government stated that they were threatened by the government to give the desired testimony.

 

[1srelluc]

Even the worst criminal deserves a fair trial.

Not that day.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I question Thomas's appointment. What a disappointment he turned out to be. Biased and corrupt. The worse for a justice to be.

Which you knew as soon as you saw the color of his skin.