The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Is what happened to Alina Habba constitutional?
| odious state pozpig | 07/23/25 |
| exciting toaster | 07/23/25 |
| odious state pozpig | 07/23/25 |
| exciting toaster | 07/23/25 |
| odious state pozpig | 07/23/25 |
| supple elastic band school cafeteria | 07/23/25 |
| contagious masturbator | 07/23/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 23rd, 2025 12:01 PM Author: odious state pozpig (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5753702&forum_id=2)#49124582) |
Date: July 23rd, 2025 12:21 PM Author: exciting toaster So "interim" appointments last 120 days, at which point the district's judges vote on and appoint a permanent US Attorney, which need not be the interim. (This is 28 USC 546.) This has been done occasionally -- Congress changed the statute for a little while after the GWB US attorney firing scandal, but then changed it back -- and yes, there are some separation-of-powers concerns. But the Appointments Clause provides that "the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, IN THE COURTS OF LAW, or in the Heads of Departments." So frankly it's an uphill battle IMO to say it's unconstitutional. (N.B.: The "interim" designation is wholly separate from an "acting" designation, which has different eligibility rules, scope of applicability, duration, etc.)
What's more interesting is whether (1) you can do successive interim appointments (like what's going on in DC); and (2) you can totally circumvent the statutory court appointment by just firing the court-appointed US Att'y (which I think probably is allowed? that certainly seems to be the direction the SC is going right now, but it's famously in flux) and appointing a special assistant or whatever with a jx. that's coextensive with the US Att'y spot (which is what they did in Buffalo... they may have done it with alina too; I'm not sure). |
 |
Date: July 23rd, 2025 12:25 PM Author: odious state pozpig not a Juris Doctor or anything but I’m not sure a statute creates a hurdle to whether something is constitutional (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5753702&forum_id=2)#49124637) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2025 12:25 PM Author: exciting toaster The Appointments Clause is in the Constitution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5753702&forum_id=2)#49124641) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2025 12:29 PM Author: odious state pozpig I’m retarded. I’ve been awake since Monday (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5753702&forum_id=2)#49124658) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2025 12:29 PM Author: supple elastic band school cafeteria (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5753702&forum_id=2)#49124656) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2025 3:21 PM Author: contagious masturbator THE most prestigious law board (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5753702&forum_id=2)#49125199) |