Another silent coup...

Like many of the legal proceedings pursued by the progressive communist democrats in their attempt to interfere with a federal presidential election, a crime under 18 U.S. Code § 595, their standing is questionable, and their legal reasoning is suspect.

It appears that ardent Trump's pursuer Jack Smith's standing before the Court as Special Counsel may be bogus. There was no legal authority to appoint Jack Smith, a private citizen, as Special Counsel.

A well-reasoned, legally-supported "friend of the court" filing by former Attorney General Edwin Meese points out:

I.    No Statute Authorizes the Position of Special Counsel Supposedly Held by Smith.

In our constitutional system, Congress alone has the authority to create federal offices not established by the Constitution. And the Attorney General cannot ex nihilo fashion offices as he sees fit. Nor has Congress given the Attorney General power to appoint a Special Counsel of this nature. Thus, without legal office, Smith cannot wield the authority of the United States, including his present attempt to seek relief in this Court.

A.    Only Congress Can Create a Federal Office.

B.    The Organic Statutes of the Department of Justice Do Not “By Law” Vest in the Attorney General of the United States the Power to Appoint Officers with the Power of Supposed Special Counsel Smith.

II.    The Appointments Clause Establishes a Default Rule that all Heads of Departments, Principal Officers, and Superior Officers Presidential Nomination, Senate Confirmation, and then Presidential Appointment.

III.    Even If Special Counsels Were Statutorily Authorized, They Would Be Superior Officials Who Would Need Presidential Appointment and Senate Confirmation.

CONCLUSION

Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor. Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos. That fact is sufficient to sink Smith’s petition, and the Court should deny review. We express no views on the merits issues addressed in Smith’s unauthorized petition.

Thus, it appears that Special Counsel Jack Smith is not so special and, in fact, is just another progressive communist democrat schmuck off the street who has no legal authority and whose actions may have been illegal. 

See for yourself...

December 11, 2023: No. 23-624 United States, Petitioner v. Donald J. Trump QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin. December 20, 2023: Brief Of Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and Law Professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson as Amici Curiae Supporting Neither Party QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States, which jurisdictional requirement must exist at all stages of litigation, and which cannot be waived, in filing his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this Court? December 22, 2023: Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment DENIED. [OCS: A decision to deny certiorari does not necessarily imply that the higher Court agrees with the lower Court's ruling; instead, it simply means that fewer than four justices determined that the circumstances of the decision of the lower Court warrant a review by the Supreme Court.]

Bottom line...

I don't see the GOP actively defending the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law in America.

Is the GOP too cowardly, lazy, and venal to stand up for our country?

While the GOP remains feckless, the progressive communist democrats are the real threat to our democracy -- and a clear and present danger to our sovereignty and national security.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve