Michaels v Whitaker (Possible Supreme Court vehicle for resolution of the current Acting Attorney General controversy)

Search - Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court docket #18-496)

The case in question is rather interesting in and of itself, essentially questioning the permanent disarmament of convicted felons, however, it is beside the point of this thread and is unlikely to be granted.

However, this case may serve a greater purpose, even if certiorari is ultimately denied.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-496/72415/20181116182740885_Motion%20to%20Substitute.pdf (Motion to Substitute)

The above link is to a Motion to Substitute Respondents in this case, specifically to substitute Rod J. Rosenstein for Jefferson B. Sessions, rather than Matthew Whitaker. In deciding this motion, the Supreme Court must determine who the proper Respondent in this case is, the proper Respondent legally being either the Attorney General or the Acting Attorney General. In deciding this motion, the Supreme Court would decide who properly is Acting Attorney General.

I would note that a decision on this motion does NOT require that the Supreme Court grant Certiorari in the underlying case. They very well may decide this motion, but deny the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

I am still up in the air on this. There are very compelling legal arguments to be made either way.

Does Whitaker have the option to side step the controversy?
“Here Rosenstein, you take it.”

Let SCOTUS again remind libs who it is that decides this and has…since George Washington.

The Senate?

1 Like

What is the main legal argument for Whittaker being illegal as acting?

…to confirm…whose sole, discretionary decision?

Damn dude…there’s a lot of turmoil in your backyard right now. How’s fulfilling the wishes of the electorate going?

Answered extensively in this forum.

I wasn’t talking to you, but have a nice day.

You could always read the link provided.

I mean, the author was so kind as to provide an actual link, a generosity which is not common amongst many.


Advise and consent. They didn’t consent to Whittaker.

Pretty poorly when the Brexit camp lied about what was possible re: a deal with the EU.

Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Wow…he must the interim?

Right now…you have neither. What you do have is a government attempting to thwart the wishes of those who cast their votes in another direction and attempting to stifle any speech that exposes this and label it…“hate speech”. Wow…just wow.

What’s the point of getting a Senate confirmed AG when you can just replace your acting AG every 210 days?

No interim AG has served without Senate approval since 1866, a couple years before the DoJ was even a thing. He served for like 6 days.

So a legal challenge is kinda expected, and on pretty solid ground.

You think Tommy Robinson is a good guy being oppressed by the UK Govt, so forgive me for not taking your view too seriously here.

Brexiteers were lied to, now reality is coming home to roost as they realise they can’t get what they thought they could. Instead we have bad option A, bad option B or bad option C. Every one will displease both sides.

I wasn’t very impressed with May since day 1, but she has an impossible situation to deal with here.

They will get there chance if Trump wants him to remain on board.

Has Trump done that?

If there is a pattern of Trump doing just that then you will have a case. Until then wait and see.

They don’t have to.