The rules are clear: Whitaker can’t supervise

[+Hammerclaw]

10 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I know this but 10 Dems were up for reelection in States that Trump won, and most kept their seats. 

15 million votes is a massive protest of Trump, no matter how you try to spin it. 

 

Local party members are quite diverse, not constantly prattling any party line. In ads in my city, they usually don't even mention their party affiliation. I, myself, often vote for both Republican and Democratic candidates. It's what they stand for and who they are, that for the average voter, matters. This time around, many voted against Trump, not necessarily a candidate, with a lot of outside money poured into their campaigns. The question is--can they successfully run on hate, again? Tens of millions voted against Trump for President in populous Blue States. He was still elected by winning the most States and electoral votes.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[+and-then]

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Local party members are quite diverse, not constantly prattling any party line. In ads in my city, they usually don't even mention their party affiliation. I, myself, often vote for both Republican and Democratic candidates. It's what they stand for and who they are, that for the average voter, matters. This time around, many voted against Trump, not necessarily a candidate, with a lot of outside money poured into their campaigns. The question is--can they successfully run on hate, again? Tens of millions voted against Trump for President in populous Blue States. He was still elected by winning the most States and electoral votes.

Not to mention that HRC has risen from her crypt and decided she wants to run again    I think it's going to take an internecine war to finally drive a stake through her political heart.  That or someone could just refuse to help her on the stairs and let gravity do the dirty work...

[+Hammerclaw]

3 minutes ago, and then said:

Not to mention that HRC has risen from her crypt and decided she wants to run again    I think it's going to take an internecine war to finally drive a stake through her political heart.  That or someone could just refuse to help her on the stairs and let gravity do the dirty work...

It'll be different, this time around. If she did win the nomination. the Democrats won't let complacency lead them into an ambush, again. She may yet get her turn to smirk down on Trump, condescendingly, on Inauguration Day. If Jimmy Carter and Trump could get elected, anyone can. Best not to count our chickens before they hatch.

[DarkHunter]

29 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I know this but 10 Dems were up for reelection in States that Trump won, and most kept their seats. 

15 million votes is a massive protest of Trump, no matter how you try to spin it. 

 

Might want to be very careful with that 15 million more vote claim.

For the senate the Democrats got about 48,875,973 votes and the Republicans got 34,699,734 votes which is Democrats getting about 14,176,239 more votes then Republicans which is rather close to what you claimed with 15 million.  The problem is those numbers are highly misleading.  California didnt have a Republican senate candidate running in the general election and it seems the article you got your number from counted all the votes both Democratic candidates got which totaled to be 7,402,843 which is approximately 52% of the vote difference between total votes for Democrats and Republicans.  Also New York Democrats outvoted Republicans by about 1,854,436 votes or approximately 13% of the vote difference which means two heavily leaning Democrat states accounted for approximately 65% of the total vote difference for senate races.

When one looks up total votes in the midterm election for the house Democrats got a total of 55,688,590 votes and the Republicans got 48,792,467 votes which is only a difference of about 6,896,123 votes which does seem significant at first till one looks at the data further.  In California Democrats outvoted Republicans by 2,298,524 votes and in New York Democrats outvoted Republicans by 1,612,980 votes.  So once again the two heavily far left states account for about 56.7% of the total votes more Democrats got then Republicans in house elections.

Ultimately it wasnt a blue wave or a rebuke of Trump unless you consider two liberal states voting for democrats heavily a rebuke of Trump.

[F3SS]

4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

How would it play into his hands?

Edit - Oh, for reelection? I don't think you're quite grasping just how badly Republicans performed recently. A projected 38 House seats lost - the most gained for Dems since Watergate - and while Dems had unfavourable elections in the Senate and performed pretty close to the projections, in said Senate Dems had 15 million more votes than Republicans. 15. Million. That's an incredible rebuke of the Trump Presidency.

This is before looking at more local elections.

Good luck to him in the next election.

 

There were also 45 or so Republican seats vacated and up for grabs. Had those incumbents stayed it would very much be a red house still. Really what the Democrats did wasn't all that impressive or indicative of Trump's 2020 run.

Regan's 1982 midterm results were almost identical except that Trump won 2 more Senate seats than he did and in 1984 Reagan landed a smashing 526 electoral votes. In fairness, he also crushed his first run with 489. Otoh, Obama lost an almost record amount of house seats with 63 net loss yet won his reelection. Except for Bush Sr and Jimmy Carter, modern history heavily favors the incumbent.

[RoofGardener]

16 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Maybe you didn't read full article? The Constitution seems to be pretty clear on the subject. Here is another article.

Nope.. the constitution is NOT clear on the subject. It appears that President Trump is following the rules. You could argue that the rules themselves are flawed, but he IS following them. 

Congress can always step in and block this, if they are really concerned about it. 

[ExpandMyMind]

18 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Nope.. the constitution is NOT clear on the subject. It appears that President Trump is following the rules. You could argue that the rules themselves are flawed, but he IS following them. 

Congress can always step in and block this, if they are really concerned about it. 

Well, uh, one of those who believes it to be unconstitutional is Clarence Thomas - Regan-appointed Supreme Court Justice - and he made his case as to why last year, before this appointment. You can read it in the second article I provided.

Quote

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would almost certainly agree. In a 2017 concurring opinion, Thomas declared that the president may never appoint a principal officer without Senate confirmation, even to fill a vacancy for a limited period. The fact that an appointment is temporary, or that the appointee serves in an “acting” capacity, “does not change the analysis,” Thomas wrote. “I do not think the structural protections of the Appointments Clause can be avoided based on such trivial distinctions.”

It's definitely unconstitutional and apparently for multiple reasons.

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[RoofGardener]

13 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Well, uh, one of those who believes it to be unconstitutional is Clarence Thomas - Regan-appointed Supreme Court Justice - and he made his case as to why last year, before this appointment. You can read it in the second article I provided.

It's definitely unconstitutional and apparently for multiple reasons.

 

Ummm... no it isn't ? And the article you linked to confirms this ? The Supremes upheld the power to make temporary appointments without reference to the Senate. Obama did it back in 2010. 

[ExpandMyMind]

11 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Ummm... no it isn't ? And the article you linked to confirms this ? The Supremes upheld the power to make temporary appointments without reference to the Senate. Obama did it back in 2010. 

As has been pointed out by Clarence Thomas, the Appointments Clause does not extend to principal officers.

[ExpandMyMind]

Acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker will consult with DOJ ethics officials about whether he should recuse himself from the Russia probe

BI

If I remember correctly it was after a meeting with DOJ ethics officials that Sessions made the decision to recuse. A decision that Whitaker supported.

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

As has been pointed out by Clarence Thomas, the Appointments Clause does not extend to principal officers.

• Was Clarence Thomas speaking for the court, or in a personal capacity ? 
• How about Unprincipled officers ?  

Interesting to hear about the DOJ ethics committee... I guess that will clear it all up ? 

Edited November 13, 2018 by RoofGardener

[ExpandMyMind]

9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

• Was Clarence Thomas speaking for the court, or in a personal capacity ? 
• How about Unprincipled officers ?  

Interesting to hear about the DOJ ethics committee... I guess that will clear it all up ? 

If their recommendation is made public. I don't think this is about Trump's decision to appoint him though. This will specifically be related to the fact that he's a career political hack who has spoken out numerous times about the investigation he's been put in place to control, by the subject of said investigation. And possibly also the FBI investigation into the company that Whitaker was involved with. There might be other reasons.

'Was Clarence Thomas speaking for the court, or in a personal capacity ? '

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1251_ed9g.pdf

[Tiggs]

President Trump’s new acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is facing questions of legitimacy, with the state of Maryland reportedly set to ask a federal judge for an injunction declaring his appointment illegal.

The state is likely to make an unpreceded move on Tuesday in a bid to block Whitaker from exercising the duties in the position, arguing that his appointment is not legitimate. The state will claim that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein is the rightful acting attorney general, the New York Times reported.

Source: Fox News

Maryland have now filed court papers. You can read a copy, here.

[ian hacktorp]

Who here thinks Whitaker will back down or be forced to resign or recuse?

I certainly don't.

Whitaker was brought in to be a hatchet man.  He will do his job faithfully.

[ian hacktorp]

Go Pound Sand, Democrats: DOJ To Release Opinion Detailing How Acting AG Appointment Is Legal

Quote

The opinion is expected to support the Trump administration’s position that the president’s authority to tap Mr. Whitaker is affirmed by guidance the office issued in 2003. At that time, the office concluded that President George W. Bush could name a non-confirmed employee of the Office of Management and Budget as the agency’s acting director.

The OMB director, like the attorney general, is a principal officer of the federal government. The 2003 opinion avoided that problem by defining an acting director as an “inferior officer,” who under Supreme Court precedent doesn’t require Senate approval to be appointed.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/11/13/doj-tells-democrats-to-shove-it-the-appointment-of-whitaker-to-acting-ag-is-legal-n2535854

 

[ExpandMyMind]

29 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Go Pound Sand, Democrats: DOJ To Release Opinion Detailing How Acting AG Appointment Is Legal

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/11/13/doj-tells-democrats-to-shove-it-the-appointment-of-whitaker-to-acting-ag-is-legal-n2535854

 

So basically the way to make is appointment "legitimate" is to pretend he's not a principal officer. Good luck holding that one up in the Supreme Court.

[RoofGardener]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

So basically the way to make is appointment "legitimate" is to pretend he's not a principal officer. Good luck holding that one up in the Supreme Court.

Indeed. 

Of course, we have a pattern here. Various applicants have requested to various courts that various EO's from President Trump be challenged. 

And - thus far - by the time it reaches the Supreme Court.. they have found in favour of the President. 

[RAyMO]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Good luck holding that one up in the Supreme Court

R U serious EMM? The supreme court by its structure is a joke, they will rule along political lines, of that I have no doubt.

[ian hacktorp]

16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Good luck holding that one up in the Supreme Court

Holding which one up in the Supreme Court?

Edited November 13, 2018 by hacktorp

[ExpandMyMind]

9 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

R U serious EMM? The supreme court by its structure is a joke, they will rule along political lines, of that I have no doubt.

This isn't a partisan issue and I quoted a Republican-appointed Justice's opinion. He has made it clear that what Trump did with Whitaker is in conflict with the Constitution.

There are examples of Justices ruling against party lines. 

[ExpandMyMind]

13 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Indeed. 

Of course, we have a pattern here. Various applicants have requested to various courts that various EO's from President Trump be challenged. 

And - thus far - by the time it reaches the Supreme Court.. they have found in favour of the President. 

This isn't an executive order. It's not even a partisan issue.

[RAyMO]

12 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

There are examples of Justices ruling against party lines.

Times are changing EMM, IMO at least: party before country, party before precedent, party before law.

ETA: and at the minute the whims of Trump are the wishes of the party.

Edited November 13, 2018 by RAyMO

[Farmer77]

Whitaker's link to a 'scam' company that was shut down by the government

Quote

Matthew Whitaker, the acting US attorney general, was on the advisory board of a Florida company that was shut down by the Federal Trade Commission and served with a $26 million judgment earlier this year for what court documents called "a scam that has bilked thousands of consumers out of millions of dollars."

The company, World Patent Marketing, promised to help inventors get patents.

 

 

 

[Michelle]

Justice Dept.: Whitaker appointment as acting AG fully lawful

 The U.S. Justice Department dismissed claims Wednesday that acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker's appointment to succeed Jeff Sessions violated the Constitution.

The department issued a 20-page memorandum to show President Donald Trump could appoint Whitaker without a Senate confirmation.

cont...

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/11/14/Justice-Dept-Whitaker-appointment-as-acting-AG-fully-lawful/5371542212050/

[ExpandMyMind]

6 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Justice Dept.: Whitaker appointment as acting AG fully lawful

 The U.S. Justice Department dismissed claims Wednesday that acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker's appointment to succeed Jeff Sessions violated the Constitution.

The department issued a 20-page memorandum to show President Donald Trump could appoint Whitaker without a Senate confirmation.

cont...

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/11/14/Justice-Dept-Whitaker-appointment-as-acting-AG-fully-lawful/5371542212050/

We'll see what the courts say, since it's currently being challenged by Maryland.