US Constitution tells us that Congress comes first among the three co-equal branches of government - Article I and that Congressional Oversight is over the Executive Branch.
Did Consovoy graduate from Tump University for his law degree?
How did he pass his bar exam if his logic is this skewed?
Dear ABA,
You are demeaned and diminished by having attorneys, judges or justices invent, misunderstand or bastardize the interpretation or representation of the law in their opinions, legal arguments or decisions!
What they are doing is arguing in defense of Trump, a private citizen, and not Trump, the President.
Which is a bit of fictional hackery, because any ruling that the Court makes against Trump the private citizen, will instantly be argued canāt be done to the President. And they are fully aware of that, which is why he deflected all questions going to that matter during the hearing.
Its even more astounding, because the issues are arising directly from Trumpās refusal to abide by the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution as President.
This might be a good move by the court to force the DOJ to show its hand now rather than giving them the chance to introduce it at SCOTUS. A ruling by the appeals court on the merits might tie the hands of SCOTUS.
Is it normal for a judge to order an amicus brief? I thought, by definition, an amicus brief was freely submitted.
Are we to rely upon Clinton vs. Jones, a ruling that predicted a civil lawsuit would not take up too much of a Presidentās time, a prediction that turned out to be seriously flawed?
What does this have to do with Congressional power to see the governmentās own records? The logic here is baffling.
The ongoing momentum here appears to be to validate the notion that itās reasonable for the President to call upon the DoJ to defend him in matters unrelated to his official duties.
Not if they can help it. A little Russian hacking and a ton of wingnut judges, and they just may pull off Roveās dream of a permanent Republican-ruled oligarchy.
Hypothetically speaking, what happens if Barr gives a DOJ lawyer (or team of lawyers) some extremely unethical instructions, and they say something different in court? What Iām imagining is that Barr would never put something in writing tying him to a coverup. Instructions would be oral, which gives them flexibility in court.
Is this scenario possible. Plausible I doubt, of course.
