Love too argue that the structure of the Constitution means the plain text of the Constitution doesn't apply, that definitely means I have correctly apprehended what the structure is
Sort of the Rabbi Hillel Constitution on one foot. "What the President wants to do, he can do to you and your neighbors. The rest is commentary. Go and learn it."
The sad thing now is that there are apparently 4 votes on the Supreme Court that would support this proposition as long as RW Republican was President.
I wish president Obama had known about this when he nominated Merrick Garland for a Supreme Court seat and Senate Republicans refused a confirmation hearing
The Appointments Clause is sometimes described (by SCOTUS no less) as a fulcrum of presidential power. But it’s actually an important limitation on it. The Pres isn’t a king and *therefore* his appointees must be democratically scrutinized and approved.
Asked to explain the President's argument here, I responded, in order: (1) Please call @ajosephoconnell.bsky.social. (2) There is absolutely no plausible argument to support this and I have no idea why they think this is permissible. I think I explicitly said I was "baffled" by the email.
Trump's lawyers are brazenly arguing that his "inherent power" overrides the express Constitutional language. If that prevails, then the whole Constitution is as good as toast.
I suspect he can get 2 votes at SCOTUS, and perhaps 4. That's the scariest part.
Comments
There are people who argue this more or less with a straight face
--Chico Marx, maybe
So, this is absurdly antidemocratic stuff.
Lots of distraction.
I suspect he can get 2 votes at SCOTUS, and perhaps 4. That's the scariest part.