If you criticized President Trump for attacking Judge Robart in Seattle or AG Sessions for questioning the ruling from Judge Watson—a judge on an “island in the Pacific”—I hope your comments about Judge Kelly today are reasoned and, ideally, about the merits of the CFPB dispute.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
The law was written is to make the Assistant Director the Acting Director in the event the Director leaves - the law is the fricking law dickweed -
2 replies 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @friendlystinger
The debate is over whether the Federal Vacancies Reform Act still provides an alternative means for temporarily filling a vacancy. Both sides presented colorable arguments as to their position.
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @friendlystinger
No Chris, he is right. The law is the law..... Source: PHH v. CFPB (2016)pic.twitter.com/PQCTYQoxbq
2 replies 3 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @mj__muldowney @friendlystinger
Um, this has nothing to do with what he was discussing. This is: (1) a separate issue about the single-director agency structure of CFPB, and (2) from the vacated three-judge panel decision that is under en banc review.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @friendlystinger
He was arguing that the law Congress passed (Dodd-Frank) is clear about the order of succession and Trump was in violation. I was being snarky and pointing out that to date, the highest court the body that decides if the congress laws passes r constitutional, has ruled said law
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @mj__muldowney @friendlystinger
(See point 2 of my response.)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @friendlystinger
Which we both know the whatever the circuit's decision will be, is going to be appealed to & ruled on by the Supreme Court. My overarching point is that there is a strong (and historically winning) legal argument against the constitutionality of the branch, and if it is legal
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
it exists as a function of the Executive overseeing powers, which is what is foolishly and for political gain, being argued today
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I was childishly mocking all those who are dismissing the Trump appointed judge's ruling as a purely political move and not grounded in (arguably) strong stare decisis: Myers, Humphrey’s Executor, Free Enterprise Fund, NLRB v. Noel Canning
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You were childishly mocking those who were childishly mocking, which was the entire critique in my initial tweet. ... In short, you’ve completely wasted my time here. Have a good night.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner @friendlystinger
Except I was being snarky, arguing the actual merits of the case?..which was your original critique? But sorry you feel you wasted time, welcome to
@Twitter0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.