Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
George Conway: The Terrible Arguments Against the Constitutionality of the Mueller Investigation
Last edited Mon Jun 11, 2018, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)
George Conway, Kellyanne's husband, defends Mueller: "There is no serious argument that Special Counsel Mueller’s appointment under the Dept. of Justice’s regulations violates the Appointments Clause specifically or the separation of powers generally."The Terrible Arguments Against the Constitutionality of the Mueller Investigation
By George Conway Monday, June 11, 2018, 5:54 PM
.............
A final observation: It isn’t very surprising to see the president tweet a meritless legal position, because, as a non-lawyer, he wouldn’t know the difference between a good one and a bad one. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with lawyers making inventive and novel arguments on behalf of their clients, or on behalf of causes or people they support, if the arguments are well-grounded in law and fact, even if the arguments ultimately turn out to be wrong. But the “constitutional” arguments made against the special counsel do not meet that standard and had little more rigor than the tweet that promoted them. Such a lack of rigor, sadly, has been a disturbing trend in much of the politically charged public discourse about the law lately, and one that lawyers—regardless of their politics—owe a duty to abjure.
Very long but well written article:
https://lawfareblog.com/terrible-arguments-against-constitutionality-mueller-investigation
By George Conway Monday, June 11, 2018, 5:54 PM
.............
A final observation: It isn’t very surprising to see the president tweet a meritless legal position, because, as a non-lawyer, he wouldn’t know the difference between a good one and a bad one. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with lawyers making inventive and novel arguments on behalf of their clients, or on behalf of causes or people they support, if the arguments are well-grounded in law and fact, even if the arguments ultimately turn out to be wrong. But the “constitutional” arguments made against the special counsel do not meet that standard and had little more rigor than the tweet that promoted them. Such a lack of rigor, sadly, has been a disturbing trend in much of the politically charged public discourse about the law lately, and one that lawyers—regardless of their politics—owe a duty to abjure.
Very long but well written article:
https://lawfareblog.com/terrible-arguments-against-constitutionality-mueller-investigation
Link to tweet
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
