I've read some of the opinion. Clarence Thomas in his concurrence of the POTUS immunity posited likewise. US v Maurice was a precedent as Justice Thomas pointed out. That being said, is it not the Democrats own error that when they controlled the House they did not construct an enabling statute for the Special Counsel? And will the next Congress correct that mistake and construct such a statute for successive administrations?
Congress had passed the Independent Counsel statute and then allowed it to lapse, the prevailing sentiment being that it created more problems than it solved.
The elephant in the room that goes unmentioned in discussion over Special Counsel is that the position requires we acknowledge that government can and does break the law, that government can be and is corrupt.
The ultimate solution is to simply have fewer crimes on the books, and less government. Government is no guarantor of good behavior and we need to stop looking for it to be that
“If Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel is unconstitutional as regards the classified documents case, it absolutely must be unconstitutional in whatever remains of the J6 case.”
When the Supreme Court issues it’s ruling, is it likely that they will make a ruling that affects the J6? That is, a broad rather than specific ruling?
I’m still hoping for our legal system to right a grave wrong.
I remain in awe of your exceptionally great legal mind, Peter!
Jack Smith’s role as regards J6 is essentially limited to his persecution of Donald Trump.
There will be no broad J6 ruling coming out of this, as the legal issues necessary to make such a ruling do not arise because of Jack Smith’s unconstitutional Special Counsel appointment.
I've read some of the opinion. Clarence Thomas in his concurrence of the POTUS immunity posited likewise. US v Maurice was a precedent as Justice Thomas pointed out. That being said, is it not the Democrats own error that when they controlled the House they did not construct an enabling statute for the Special Counsel? And will the next Congress correct that mistake and construct such a statute for successive administrations?
Congress had passed the Independent Counsel statute and then allowed it to lapse, the prevailing sentiment being that it created more problems than it solved.
The elephant in the room that goes unmentioned in discussion over Special Counsel is that the position requires we acknowledge that government can and does break the law, that government can be and is corrupt.
The ultimate solution is to simply have fewer crimes on the books, and less government. Government is no guarantor of good behavior and we need to stop looking for it to be that
“If Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel is unconstitutional as regards the classified documents case, it absolutely must be unconstitutional in whatever remains of the J6 case.”
When the Supreme Court issues it’s ruling, is it likely that they will make a ruling that affects the J6? That is, a broad rather than specific ruling?
I’m still hoping for our legal system to right a grave wrong.
I remain in awe of your exceptionally great legal mind, Peter!
Jack Smith’s role as regards J6 is essentially limited to his persecution of Donald Trump.
There will be no broad J6 ruling coming out of this, as the legal issues necessary to make such a ruling do not arise because of Jack Smith’s unconstitutional Special Counsel appointment.