well. even if there is some problem with the appointment. and, again, i don t think there is at all. jack smith is an inferior officer. it is clear under statutory authority in the constitution that he can be appointed by the attorney general of the united states. i think that is quite clear. but even if there was some other path, there is a doctrine that says when actions have been taken, such as this, we don t go back in and unravel that action because the appointment was unlawful. that is the doctrine that is excepted in law. you can move forward and you change things moving forward but you don t go back and unravel what has already been done. there are some the reasons why this is wrong. i would say, again, trying to be fair here and not allow my own biases to color how i see this, in the main, this judge has taken a bunch of
comparemela.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from comparemela.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
actions and not taken a bunch of actions, that have led to a lot of delay. and i would say, a sort of surprising degree of solicit business towards defenses arguments, no matter how outlandish they seem. i agree with you, chris. i do think some of it is through an experience or lack of confidence, apparently, in her own ability to make judgments based on the written record. many of emotions that we have seen here, that she has had argument on, not to mention an argument blasting an entire day. is not the first time she has had argument go for an entire day. many of these are motions that i think other more experienced judges would have ruled on just based on the papers. there is no requirement that she actually here argument from the parties on every issue. supposed to really be an opportunity for you to ask the questions that you don t feel, as a judge, were resolved in the papers. so that is even all the more reason why you have no need really to hear from nonparties, people just h
those oral arguments in courts of appeals, arguing 30 minutes per side per party. this is really extraordinary. i will say, though. the two amici requested oral argument representing amici who supported donald trump notion, there was an amicus brief filed on behalf of jack smith side of this. and as people said, you know, if the other guys are going to get to argue, then we want to argue, too. and judge eileen cannon did grant that. we will have someone arguing, as well, who is supporting jack smith. again, i am straining to sort of communicate this to nonlegal people. i think legal people are like, every time cannon does something more or less, legal people are like okay, this is a weird one. she is running her own little supreme court there on this constitutional issue. she is a district court judge. here s a look at 2018, and other federal judge was a trump appointee, holds constitutionality of mueller appointment.