(07-25-2025 10:42 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: (07-25-2025 06:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-25-2025 06:25 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote: (07-25-2025 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-25-2025 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: the tide turns? that will only happen when non-filth rogue judges are removed from NJ. In the meantime, enjoy Bondi handing you your ass.
Simply acting within the law as written is "rogue judges"? Cool cool. Goes back to my first post in this thread.
And, I doubt from the above you understand my last comment. But great rhetoric there, my friend. Neat stuff....
Rogue because they wanted to pick the nominee. That’s not in their acting within the law wheelhouse. Even a layman knows that.
Funny that --
28 U.S. Code § 546 - Vacancies
(d) If an appointment expires [after the 120 days has ended for an interim appointment] under subsection (2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.
Care to retract the bolded above? It had already been posted and cited several days ago. What do the English words italicized above mean to you? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
"May appoint" would seem to indicate there may be other avenues. Like say the current interim position holder resigning the position and then being appointed again, rendering the courts involvement unnecessary.
Now if it said "will appoint", that's a different story.
Is there any proscription against what was done, was it illegal? If so, how?
May or may not be illegal in what was done. Two reasons.
The first issue lies in the Constitutional requirement that the office requires Senate confirmation. The issue of the above when exercised time and time again, negates that requirement. If the President can stack together multiple interims, then there is literally no requirement to confirm by the Senate.
There is a second reason -- it goes to a parallel 'fill in the interim' statute. In that avenue, the question is whether the two statutes operate together and both are operable, or whether what I cited overrides the other in the case.
The real problem is having a proper plaintiff to bring suit. There seems to be only one person with a cognizable injury here -- the first assistant who was named by the judges and was fired immediately by Bondi.
The real damage for me goes to normalization of a sketchy method. No administration has done this before -- simply because it now creates a perverse incentive for everyione to do this all the time. It might be a 'win' for Trump (no matter how fleeting, since the NJ USAtty isnt really a power spot overall), but now the table is set for the follow up. There are a host of other folks I would rather not see use this same action in the future. As an example, I thought many of Obama's US Atty picks were terrible. A few got shot down by the Senate. Now it is normalized for even those to be 're-upped' time after time after time.
If that is the way you want to normally see US Attys placed into office, free country and all that jazz. I seem to agree with the role the Senate has, and welcome that role.
There are a lot more activist Dem folks who are potential US Attys than Repubs as far as I can tell. But now, the new norm seems to be to bypass the Senate overall and stack interim appt on interim appt. Given the sharper activist roles of Dem US Attys inthe last 20 years, I dont understand why they changed the norm. Stupid move.
Im glad it got the rocks off for people who want to crow about facing 'rogue judges'. Which, given it is a legal action, seems a really stupid moniker for that.
/
[NEWS] Bondi takes a sledgehammer to rogue NJ liberal judges
![[Image: hungover-drunk.gif]](https://media1.tenor.com/m/8_xpCk0qZC0AAAAd/hungover-drunk.gif)
![[Image: a1ejrp.jpg]](https://i.imgflip.com/a1ejrp.jpg)
![[Image: 1TyXLU1.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/1TyXLU1.gif)