Thomas Questions Whether Jack Smith's Office Is Constitutional
By: Ben Weingarten (The Federalist)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On the final day of a significant Supreme Court term, and in one of its most consequential cases, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a stunning rebuke to our ruling regime for its disingenuous effort to legitimize the republic-eviscerating lawfare inquisition against Donald Trump.
Thomas took to a concurrence in the landmark Trump v. United States case not so much to affirm the majority's view regarding former President Trump's immunity from prosecution, but to question whether the Biden Justice Department's prosecution of Trump itself was legal.
"In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President 'is not above the law,'" Thomas wrote. "But, as the Court explains, the President's immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law."
By contrast, the associate justice asserted, "I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been 'established by Law,' as the Constitution requires."
"If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people," Thomas wrote.
Thomas wants the lower courts to weigh in on whether Special Counsel Jack Smith is in fact "duly authorized."
Under the Constitution's appointment clause, which is key to ensuring the separation of powers, Congress creates offices, and either presidents fill them with the advice and consent of the Senate or, if Congress delegates them the authority, the president, "Courts of Law," or "Heads of Departments" may appoint "inferior officers."
This represented a break from and corrective to the British monarchy, under which, as Thomas recounts, quoting the Declaration of Independence, the king had "erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
Thomas makes a compelling case that Congress never created Special Counsel Jack Smith's office. Even if it did, he asserts, Smith may well not be lawfully appointed to it. Historically, the legislative branch has created special and independent counsels by statute. Not so in the case of Special Counsel Smith. Attorney General Merrick Garland failed to identify any statute "that clearly creates" Smith's office.
He did rely on "several statutes of a general nature" to justify Smith's appointment, per the concurrence. However, Thomas found Garland's use of 28 U.S.C. §509, 510, 515, 533 to justify that appointment to be dubious.
Sections 509 and 510, Thomas notes, deal with the attorney general's general functions and "ability to delegate authority to 'any other officer, employee, or agency.'"
Section 515, which deals with specially appointed attorneys, concerns those tabbed by the attorney general "under law," suggesting, as Thomas says, "that such an attorney's office must have already been created by some other law."
Section 533 concerns the attorney general's power to "appoint officials … to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States." Whether or not "officials" are equivalent to "officers," Thomas writes, "this provision would be a curious place for Congress to hide the creation of an office for a Special Counsel" since it falls within a chapter pertaining to the Federal Bureau of Investigations.
None of these statutes create an office for the special counsel, at least "not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose," Thomas wrote.
Separately, he noted in a footnote, Congress has previously granted the attorney general power to appoint "additional officers" as he deems fit, but only to the Bureau of Prisons. This further suggests that the legislative branch circumscribed the appointment power and would have been apt to specify it if intended that the attorney general could appoint a special counsel like Jack Smith.
While presidents have appointed special prosecutors previously, and without pointing to a specific authorizing statute, Thomas concedes the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of those appointments. He concludes:
Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed. We must respect the Constitution's separation of powers in all its forms, else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee. (Author's Emphasis)
It is perhaps unlikely that Judge Tanya Chutkan, the presiding judge in the Jan. 6 case in which the presidential immunity question arose, will seriously weigh any challenge to Special Counsel Smith's legitimacy.
Judge Aileen Cannon, however, who is overseeing Jack Smith's classified documents case, has shown a willingness to check the Justice Department's work. That seems more than prudent given the seeming abnormalities and defects in that prosecution and the zealousness that has led Smith to be smacked down by the Supreme Court historically, and in just the last two business days with the Fischer case, potentially wiping out of two of Smith's four Jan. 6 charges. Now the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling eliminates meaningful portions of the indictment as grounds for prosecution.
Despite the court providing checks on Biden's hyper-political and weaponized Justice Department, it remains remarkable that merely one justice stepped into the breach to raise his hand and demand the courts scrutinize the lawfulness of Smith's office itself.
We ought to celebrate Thomas' devotion to the Constitution and willingness to stand alone in its defense, but that he did so here is a reminder that the courts are no panacea. Ultimately, there is no substitute for vigorous legislative action to combat an administrative state run amok.
Calling members trolls or dishonest will cause your comments to be deleted.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted.
Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
No "MAGA", Fascism References, Memes
Tags
Who is online
432 visitors
The legal aspect of Smith's "office" may be a downfall for the Biden Admin.
Have heard that it is not legal for months. WTF is taking so damned long to nullify this stuff...........Deliberate foot dragging at its finest.
It may come down to the sitting judges asking the right questions. Judge Aileen Cannon seems to be on the right track but she may not quite be there. But it wasn't brought up in her case (at least that I can remember)
Judge Tanya Chutkan, on the other hand, I don't think has addressed the issue.
Turn off FoxNews, Breitbart, and OAN, then you'll stop hearing it.
He was appointed outside the parameters that special prosecutors are appointed by. Turn off MSNBC and network news and you would have heard it too. From the article............
No one has ever said that Trump is innocent, all they whine about is how he is being persecuted.
Innocent people dont have their trials delayed for years.
A good defense will call everything into question. That causes delays while the prosecution's methods and intents are checked out.
Don't want to have delays, ensure EVERYTHING is 100% legal. Don't go into panic mode.
Already had the trial. Surprised you missed it. They are delaying the sentencing due to the ruling of the Supremes yesterday as it should be. Basically a matter of "new evidence" so to speak.
Sorry John, but Trump has the right to due process just like everyone else.
Why don't you tell us all why Hunter's first trial took so damn long to come about; because "innocent people don't have their trials delayed for years."
It would be nice to see Bill, Hillary, Obama, and Biden get to experience the joy of facing the charges they so richly deserve; but our legal system seems to have a gaping hole when it comes to prosecuting Democrats.
Only according to FoxNews, Breitbart, and OAN.
If that were the case then why is Judge Cannon asking these questions. Why is a Supreme Court Justice asking these questions? Because there is a chance that this particular Special Prosecutor may have been appointed illegally, thereby making everything he's done illegal.
What I don't get is, if the Democrats are "the party of law and order" how this could possibly happen?
And Clarence Thomas a justice on the supreme court. You may have heard the name.............
The left doesn't like him because he doesn't do what the left want him to do.
If you look at what Cannon has been doing you wouldn't have to ask. Her gavel is stuck so far up Trump's ass she has to ask him for approval before she does anything.
A disgraced and corrupt one.
Sotomayer?
Nope, the one that has accepted millions of dollars in gifts from a billionaire that had multiple cases in front of SCOTUS. And the justice that refused to recuse himself despite knowing the billionaire's connection to those cases.
thomas is a trump lackey and traitor
Oh, you don't like somebody questioning the prosecution? Then ensure everything is done correctly.