0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I believe the main argument over Whitaker stems from the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and whether someone not confirmed by the Senate can hold a cabinet level position. If it’s challenged and makes its way to SCOTUS, it’ll be interesting to see how opinions fall, based on previous decisions, like NLRB v. SW General, Inc. and the changes in political climate.I don't thinkthe FVRA addresses confirmation, doowops husband referred to the Appoinments Clause in the Constitution.Whitaker was in fact confirmed by the Senate when he was appointed US attorney some time back. That has to be goodenough, otherwise even Rosenstein could not sit as Acting, because he was not confirmed to a "Cabinet Level Post". Therewas no hue and cry when whatshername was appointed acting and defied Trump. No Whitaker is good for210 days.https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/nlrb-v-sw-general-inc/
He is acting head, and not appointed permanently. I believe Trump is fully in his right to keep that branch moving forward.
I don't thinkthe FVRA addresses confirmation, doowops husband referred to the Appoinments Clause in the Constitution. Whitaker was in fact confirmed by the Senate when he was appointed US attorney some time back. That has to be good enough, otherwise even Rosenstein could not sit as Acting, because he was not confirmed to a "Cabinet Level Post". There was no hue and cry when whatshername was appointed acting and defied Trump. No Whitaker is good for210 days.