pull down to refresh

A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit said in a unanimous order that a lower court correctly disqualified Habba, who previously served as Trump's personal defense lawyer. In that ruling, US District Judge Matthew Brann (Obama) said that Habba had been serving without lawful authority since the beginning of July, when she was tapped to temporarily lead the US Attorney's Office in New Jersey. Brann also disqualified her from participating in ongoing cases.
"Under the Government's delegation theory, Habba may avoid the gauntlet of presidential appointment and Senate confirmation and serve as the de facto U.S. Attorney indefinitely," Judge Michael Fisher wrote for the court. "This view is so broad that it bypasses the constitutional [presidential appointment and Senate confirmation] process entirely. It also essentially eliminates the requirements of the FVRA and the U.S. Attorney-specific statute."
big surprise coming from Obama judges in district court
btw, district court judges are sub par. These are not great legal minds who will become circuit court justices or higher.
The district judges on senior status are extreme partisan hacks who want to receive a lifetime paycheck for doing very little work.
reply
You're not wrong about some district court judges. Here circuit appellate court affirmed the district court.
reply
The administration has the option to request a full panel of the 3rd Circuit judges to reconsider the decision, or it can appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
D. Michael Fisher George W. Bush (R) December 9, 2003 D. Brooks Smith George W. Bush (R) July 31, 2002 Luis Felipe Restrepo Barack Obama (D) January 11, 2016
reply
Some? For Biden and Obama, they are all subpar with thin legal credentials, obvious DEI hires
District judges will never be promoted. The only way they become famous is by engaging in judicial activism. By trying to neuter the exec branch when the wrong person is President.
reply
It's probably good that Trump is pushing so many of these boundaries because it's leading courts to make the limits explicit. It's also revealing places where presidential powers are essentially unbounded, which is worth knowing.
reply