Thomas uses Trump immunity ruling to question Jack Smith appointment

[dalton99a]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/01/clarence-thomas-jack-smith-special-counsel-immunity/

https://archive.ph/3183N

Thomas uses Trump immunity ruling to question Jack Smith appointment
Echoing a long-shot argument made by Donald Trump’s attorneys in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas said special counsels need Senate confirmation.
By Perry Stein
July 1, 2024 at 6:17 p.m. EDT

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas tackled a question in his presidential immunity opinion Monday that Donald Trump’s attorneys didn’t bring before the nation’s highest court: Was special counsel Jack Smith legally appointed?

Thomas joined his fellow conservative justices on a blockbuster majority opinion that expanded the definition of presidential powers and narrowed the scope of Trump’s D.C. election interference trial.

He also wrote a concurring opinion that delved into the separate question of whether Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the Constitution when he appointed Smith in November 2022 to oversee the two federal prosecutions of Trump.

Thomas argued both that the special counsel’s office needs to be established by Congress and that Smith needed to be confirmed by the Senate. He said he tacked on his concurring opinion to the immunity ruling to “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure.”

...

[Walleye]

1. Clarence thinks he deserves total immunity too

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Law Whisperer

[sanatanadharma]

3. Sorry Thomas, the USSC ruled that an energetic Executive is immune in its own field

The DOJ is under the executive branch and Biden can manage as he desires within the laws.
The Attorney General, doing executive work, is immune from 2nd guessing.

Thomas is worrying about what "may violate our constitutional structure" is a laugh.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

4. If that were the case, Clarence....

There would be NO Special Counsels.