The Reitz appointment may be lawful hardball under the statute. But the statute itself exposes a separation-of-powers deformity. U.S. Attorneys prosecute for the Executive. They answer to the President through the Attorney General. They exercise Article II law-enforcement power. So why are Article III judges — the same judges who will later preside over criminal cases brought by that office — voting on who runs the prosecution shop? That is not clean constitutional architecture. It is a conflict factory dressed up as vacancy management. The problem becomes obvious when the politics flip. In Texas, judges cooperated with Trump’s pick. In New Jersey, hostile district judges effectively blocked Alina Habba. Same mechanism, different politics. If judges want independence, they should stop participating in executive staffing. The President already has leverage against a Senate that refuses confirmations: refuse their bills, force negotiations, make appointments a political cost, as Trump is already doing with the SAVE Act. But letting the judiciary serve as gatekeeper over prosecutors is madness. A court should judge cases, not help pick the lawyer bringing them. Congress should repeal the judicial-backstop provision and leave interim executive appointments inside the Executive Branch.
Politics is the Art of the Possible. Let's get the job done now BAMN.
Save the constitutional purity for after we kill the abominable, grotesque and illegal census. Order will be restored. We can stop apportioning and delivering electoral votes and representatives to illegal invaders and homeless addicts via the corrupt NGOs and fraudulent ballots harvesters.
Due to Congress’s slow response to get anything done, it appears Mr. Muse explained why this was necessary. Judges don’t want independence, obviously, since Dem appointed judges have made it their life’s work to make lawfare towards President Trump their main purpose.
Amen.
(Great writing, again!)
The Reitz appointment may be lawful hardball under the statute. But the statute itself exposes a separation-of-powers deformity. U.S. Attorneys prosecute for the Executive. They answer to the President through the Attorney General. They exercise Article II law-enforcement power. So why are Article III judges — the same judges who will later preside over criminal cases brought by that office — voting on who runs the prosecution shop? That is not clean constitutional architecture. It is a conflict factory dressed up as vacancy management. The problem becomes obvious when the politics flip. In Texas, judges cooperated with Trump’s pick. In New Jersey, hostile district judges effectively blocked Alina Habba. Same mechanism, different politics. If judges want independence, they should stop participating in executive staffing. The President already has leverage against a Senate that refuses confirmations: refuse their bills, force negotiations, make appointments a political cost, as Trump is already doing with the SAVE Act. But letting the judiciary serve as gatekeeper over prosecutors is madness. A court should judge cases, not help pick the lawyer bringing them. Congress should repeal the judicial-backstop provision and leave interim executive appointments inside the Executive Branch.
Politics is the Art of the Possible. Let's get the job done now BAMN.
Save the constitutional purity for after we kill the abominable, grotesque and illegal census. Order will be restored. We can stop apportioning and delivering electoral votes and representatives to illegal invaders and homeless addicts via the corrupt NGOs and fraudulent ballots harvesters.
Due to Congress’s slow response to get anything done, it appears Mr. Muse explained why this was necessary. Judges don’t want independence, obviously, since Dem appointed judges have made it their life’s work to make lawfare towards President Trump their main purpose.
I could not agree more with you on this!
Considering the low quality of Trump nominees for State Attorneys this may be the only way to get them in.
Another social media troll - check wiki
Pirro and Martin and Habi and that other woman who had never prosecuted a case. Really hopeless nominees.
Some, like Martin and Blondi, truly malignant.
You are a better Constitutional scholar than most lawyers I know…and I know a lot of lawyers.
The headline led me to think we were about to hear how the President was finally going to get the Save America Act through. Guess not. . .
I love the workaround for prosecutors. It preserves a shy fig leaf for GOP Senators with squishy seats like Collins. Let's skin some cats.
Is there an equally adept sleight of hand for stalled confirmations outside DOJ?