The Great Dissent : Morrison v Olson

Congress tried to pass a law that allowed someone not subject to the president to prosecute high level executive officials. Seven members of the court said "Cool". But Scala said WTF, in perhaps his best and most influential opinion of his career. This is a good one :)
----

[dans]

"Congress shall make no law..." somehow morphed into, "it's okay for Congress to make minor adjustments." Guess I was born too literal.

[RichardThePear]

Admin law has become such a clusterbomb of insane false-starts, offsides, and lineman-downfield offenses.

[TruthLiberty]

I hope it becomes the majority, no, I hope it becomes the unanimous view, because it's about the most important aspect of constitutional governance, separation of powers.

[polyphonicgroove]

Nice segment Curt, I love learning and drilling down on constitutional issues especially as it is so relevant today!! I'm hoping you and the other 3 lawyers do a live stream about the first debate.

[OldWorldFanatic]

Heard you on Rekieta's stream and thought you were pretty spot on. My opinion has been further confirmed by this video.

[Hapyendingwow]

I’m going to assume judge Sullivan doesn’t agree with Justice Scalia. Lol

[vincentgardner]

Great video!! Thanks for showing real GRIT on the Sullivan motion to dismiss hearing!!!!

[trizzybob]

This makes me think of how the rules of court removed a private person from demanding a grand jury prosecute a person.

Now we have to ask please to the presidents person.

That is not how it is supposed to be!

[andyb]

Legal question. If you acquire an item with a credit arrangement, but don't sign it, and it gets to court for not paying, are you under any legal requirement to pay for it? Do you have to sign a contract to make it valid?

[eshootziscrs]

Pretty brilliant dissent.
Don't always agree with Scalia but he surely had a great mind.
Policy and law are not separate. 🤣

[roberteltze]

Only congress has the authority to declare war yet the president can still essentially wage war without an official declaration. Isn't that a case of the executive branch taking a little bit from the legislative branch?

[terencewinters]

Sometimes you have to stand alone. The powers of the 4th branch to be extended by the congress ( hereinafter the epa special counsel outside the DOJ was to his thinking a violation of separation of powers and limited government.) Similar problems have arisen by 4th branch rule making which have made the Code of Federal Regulations more voluminous than the U.S. Code. Granted modern lifes complexity has called for regulation but HOW MUCH ? TOO MUCH CONSTRAINS LIBERTY INNOVATION AND OTHER non implied branches powers.

[theunluckybard]

So, is Scalia essentially arguing that there's no such thing as meaningful congressional oversight of executive departments (assuming that just saying "Naughty naughty" isn't meaningful)? That, for example, the EPA can decide to take all its superfund money and buy pinball machines for Kim Jong Il's hospital room with it, and if the president doesn't want to do anything about it, then, tough luck?

[theeutecticpoint]

the eternal question, who watches the watchmen

[byronwatkins]

I understand what Scalia is saying; however, I think we must reconcile two other points. First, Article I, Section 2, gives the House of Representatives the EXCLUSIVE authority to prosecute impeachments and Article II, Section 4, specifies who may be impeached and for which acts they may be impeached. SURELY, we cannot expect the House of Representatives to perform this DUTY to expose the crimes and misdemeanors of federal officers if the House cannot impanel a legal team to investigate suspected occurrences.
Second, impeachment is NOT the execution of legislative law; impeachment is the removal of unfit federal officers. These officers include the president, his cabinet, FBI officers, CIA officers, military officers, US Marshals, etc. -- any federal officer may be removed by the House of Representatives via impeachment if the House can demonstrate to the Senate that the officer has probably committed crimes or misdemeanors. I personally believe that even SCOTUS justices can be impeached if "during good behavior" is suspected of being breached.
Before an impaneled legal team can demand evidence, they must demonstrate a Fourth Amendment probable cause specifying the crime suspected, the reason for the suspicion, and the evidence to be seized to a federal court and obtain a search warrant. But once the warrant is issued, not even the president can refuse it without validating the House's suspicion. Why else should the Chief Justice preside over impeachments?

[werefrogofassyria]

The law would make sense if it were limited to only prosecuting the president, but such a thing is impossible. There's an entirely different process for prosecuting the president.

[atypocrat]

Either you have a sun burn on your face, or you are suffering from some kind of alergic reaction. Gluten or dairy I bet.

[wulfherecyning]

USA: Congress might accidentally step on the Judicial and Executive branches and this is a big no no
UK: Oi mate Paaar-li-ment is supreme yeah? So F off we can do whatever, nah fuss, nay loicence old chum, give us a mo' to _decimate the legal system_

[byronwatkins]

If the Fourth Amendment didn't exist, it would also be far more efficient to frame citizens for crimes committed by police, politicians, and others.

[DavidWright-yhzx]

Amurica is screw up and it’s so obvious ! You need to start again and a two party state is the major problem, one choice is no choice, Trump won’t go easily and the status quo will help him !!.