Boy what is the right’s deal with the judicial branch? Law and order for thee and not for me?
Sorry but twump isnt a king.
While Judge shopping occurs, by both parties, this is not close to such a case.
Venue in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was obviously correct, as all “errors and omissions” giving rise to this case occurred there.
Judge Moss got this case on the random case draw.
I know very well when Judge shopping occurs. This is not close to being it.
2 Likes
As with all Wikipedia articles, any person can make an edit. The problem with that particular edit wasn’t the statement about him unlawfully serving, but that he was currently unlawfully serving. The error has since been corrected.
That is not a bureaucratic formality. That is a statute passed by Congress EXACTLY to prevent the President or cabinet members from moving people into certain positions without the advice and consent of the Senate.
Presidents of both parties had been abusing temporary or ad interim appointments for years to bypass the Senate and in 1998, Congress put a stop to it.
If this was to make its way to the Supreme Court, there would no doubt be a unanimous 9 to 0 decision to uphold Judge Moss’s ruling.
1 Like
And the basis for many others.
What if…? What if…? What if…? Can only mean…!
It’s often referred to as ‘connecting the dots’. haha
1 Like
Those rat fart, frakking, deep state, fake politicians in 1998 specifically passed this law because they knew it would cause a ruling against Trump now.
Screw the law, The Chosen One should be able to put hire anyone he wants in any position without having to go through the Senate.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
1 Like
Here we go again with another 
judge from the DC district with their leftist activism. Democrat open border anti-Americanism is so blatant they don’t hide their preference for illegals and fraudulent asylum seekers over American citizens and national security.
Does the law state that the remedy must be to invalidate any directive that was issued because the proper process of appointment wasn’t followed?
I’ll let the Supreme Court speak for themself.
It’s like you didn’t bother to read the thread at all.
1 Like
Obeying the law is Anti-American? Good to know.
1 Like
I’m trying to understand all this.
The ruling by the judge isn’t about Cuccinelli current position. It’s about a prior position.
He’s no longer in that position. What’s the point of all the stink about an appointment to a position he’s no longer in?
1 Like
Yes, it does.
(1)
An action taken by any person who is not acting under section 3345, 3346, or 3347, or as provided by subsection (b), in the performance of any function or duty of a vacant office to which this section and sections 3346, 3347, 3349, 3349a, 3349b, and 3349c apply shall have no force or effect.
The APA also voids any decisions, conclusions or directives made “not in accordance with the law” - and it is safe to say directives made by someone without the authority to do so are not in accordance with the law.
It is a couple of directives he issued while unlawfully holding that position that are the object of the underlying lawsuit. While he left that position, the directives he unlawfully issued were still in effect. The court ruling nullified them.
The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 was passed under a Republican controlled Congress with heavy Republican support and was signed into law by President Clinton.
On the House side:
| REPUBLICAN | 162 | 64 | 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEMOCRATIC | 170 | 31 | 5 | |
| INDEPENDENT | 1 | |||
| TOTALS | 333 | 95 | 7 |
On the Senate side:
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs — 65
Abraham (R-MI)
Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bryan (D-NV)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
D’Amato (R-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Faircloth (R-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Ford (D-KY)
Frist (R-TN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Mack (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Robb (D-VA)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs — 29
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Coats (R-IN)
Collins (R-ME)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Thomas (R-WY)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Not Voting - 6
Bumpers (D-AR)
Glenn (D-OH)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Ok. That makes sense.
I asked what I did after I was this headline:
Do people expect him to step down from his current position because of the problem with the previous position?
nope, they can do what they’ve done since the case. reorganize the department giving cuccinelli a post not requiring confirmation
He is not required to leave his current position, to which he was lawfully appointed.
Yes let’s circumvent the law…So much for the “Law and order party”.
its not circumventing anything. its reorganizing.
