News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.
The Gateway Pundit reported today that the State of Maryland has filed a legal objection to President Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting Attorney General. When did state courts have any say over presidential appointments?
The article notes:
The state seeks a preliminary injunction that prevents the federal government from responding to the suit while Whitaker appears as acting attorney general. Instead, Maryland requests a declaration that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is the acting attorney general.
Jonathan Turley posted an article about the apointment of Matthew Whitaker.
The article states:
However, this morning some members and commentators have declared that Whitaker cannot serve as an Acting Attorney General under federal law. I have to disagree. While not getting into the merits of the selection, it seems clear to me that, under 5 U.S.C. 3345, that Whitaker does indeed qualify. (This of course does not address the long-standing debate over the constitutionality of such laws. A challenge can be made under the Appointment Clause of the Constitution, mandating that a “principal officer” in the federal government may not be appointed without Senate confirmation).
…I fail to see the compelling argument to disqualify Whitaker. Any challenge would face added challenge of finding someone with standing, though Mueller could contest an order on the basis of the legal status of Whitaker. That would make for an interesting challenge but the odds would be against Mueller over the long course of appeals.
The motive behind the lawsuit evidently has to do with fear that Matthew Whitaker will shut down the Mueller Investigation. That may be a valid fear, but I think a more valid fear would be that under Matthew Whitaker the Justice Department might actually take another look at how some people handled classified information during the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton was not the only person with classified information on a non-government secured device. An investigation into mishandling of classified information under President Obama would be a serious threat to many people who were in the Obama administration.
President Obama stated many times that he did not have the power to grant amnesty to illegal aliens–then he did it. A number of states sued the government to stop the move, stating that it would be damaging to their states. A judge in Texas blocked President Obama’s amnesty program from being implemented.
The Hill posted an article yesterday updating the situation:
The same 5th Circuit is also reviewing a separate challenge on the injunction and will hear oral arguments in that case during the first full week of July. The administration will try to persuade the judges to lift the injunction during that argument.
The injunction stems from a larger suit filed by 26 states on whether Obama’s executive actions are constitutional.
President Obama has brought executive orders to a whole new level. Hopefully the courts will stop this, as Congress has not exercised its proper role.
Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about the latest episode of the battle between Hobby Lobby and the Obama Administration over the HHS regulations in ObamaCare. Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected an emergency request for an injunction to prevent HHS from enforcing the contraception mandate on Hobby Lobby’s Catholic owners.
“While the applicants allege they will face irreparable harm if they are forced to choose between complying with the contraception-coverage requirement and paying significant fines, they cannot show that an injunction is necessary or appropriate to aid our jurisdiction,” Sotomayor wrote in a short opinion rejecting Hobby Lobby’s request.
Because Hobby Lobby will not comply with the mandate, they are facing fines of $1.3 million a day beginning on January 1st. HHS cannot collect the money immediately, but Hobby Lobby is required to set the money aside. I can’t imagine a company not being harmed by taking $1.3 a day away from their operating cash.
The article concludes:
Expect Hobby Lobby to keep pursuing the case, and keep an eye out for emergency requests from other appellate circuits. If one lands on the desk of Antonin Scalia or Sam Alito, the outcome could be quite different — and we may get an expedited Supreme Court argument out of it, even if it would still be preliminary.
The HHS mandate requiring companies to provide free contraception is government overreach at its worst. Why is the HHS insisting on thisl when various forms of contraception are readily available and inexpensive?