The motions track the analysis of Judge Cannon and argue that “the Attorney General relied upon the exact same authority to appoint the Special Counsel in both the Trump and Biden matters, and both appointments are invalid for the same reason.”
I wrote in my column that the challenges seem to draw courts into the Wonderland of Special Counsels.
In “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” the Mad Hatter asks Alice, “Why is a raven like a writing desk?” It turned out that the Mad Hatter had no better idea than Alice.
In her 93-page order, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon seemed to face the same dilemma when she asked Special Counsel Jack Smith why a private citizen is like a confirmed U.S. Attorney.
However, a key difference between Smith and Weiss is that it could lead these courts to asking “why is a Weiss like a Smith?” The extent that he is not could prove a critical distinction. Weiss is a Senate confirmed U.S. Attorney where Smith was a private citizen plucked by Merrick Garland from the general population for the position.
Biden is seeking to brush over that Mad Hatter anomaly:
“The constitutional flaw at the center of the Special Counsel’s appointment is that Congress has not established the office of a Special Counsel. Given that Congress requires a U.S. Attorney to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it makes no sense to assume that Congress would allow the Attorney General to unilaterally appoint someone as Special Counsel with equal or greater power than a U.S. Attorney. That is what has been attempted here.”
Clarence Thomas is beaming.
********
(TLB) published this article from Jonathan Turley with our appreciation for this perspective
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Header featured image (edited) credit: Mad Hatter YouTube screen grab/Pinterest
Emphasis added by (TLB)
••••
Comments