The Great Dissent: Justice Scalia's Opinion in Morrison v. Olson 

If the doof in your class praised Scalia as wise, what are the chances he suffered from leftist thinking?

@@Achill101 The doof was a leftist. He only told Scalia he was "wise," in order to make the argument that unelected, lifetime-appointed judges should make rules that govern every facet of our lives. But the doof clearly did not believe in Scalia's "wisdom" - which exposed the fallacy in his argument. Leftists are not concerned with logic. Their opinions and statements are based on emotion.

Joe Vartanian THAT’S because a lot of liberals are stupid!!

Peter T doof appealed to authority

If you ever argue with a leftist on the merits of the law, the argument quickly changes to what is the right thing to do for society. A value judgement on what is the right thing to do is always a moving target that depends on a person's judgement - it basically means that the law is meaningless.

Well he was murdered so there's that

Aeneas C. Stamos Justice Scalia was a corrupt varmint.

@@readynowforever3676 I am sad to hear that.

Aeneas C. Stamos It’s unfortunate that he was that. If he truly “understood the meaning and function of our (*Constitution)”, he would not have seen it as a stagnated relic, that needed a strict originalist scholarly exegesis, as if it was one of those mythical fabled fairytale doctrines, such as the Bible or the Quran. He would have seen it as living, virtually biological document (that may need to evolve). And he was all to willing to engage in jurist activism & political partisanship when it suited the circumstance. He even once said that he was reluctant to leave the bench because he didn’t want someone to “come along and undo all of my work”. As if he was ordained by some imaginary god or by the spirit of the framers themselves to be the absolute authority. For that, I’m glad he’s dead. And the historical corruption & criminal engagement of Donald Trump has proven his decision to be absolutely DEAD WRONG. Thanks for responding friend, as I wanted the opportunity to expound and elaborate on my dissent and disgust with Justice Scalia.

You cannot truly understand the meaning and function of the Constitution, unless you were there when it was written. It is ignorant for people to go around yapping about how they’re strict constitutionalists. It is ignorant to believe you know the true meaning of this document and ignorant to believe the founding fathers thought the same way about the document as some modern day justice. So no, Scalia just had a conservative view of the Constitution. Doesn’t mean it is right.

Is Leonard Leo a *good* man? Would you leave an elderly person, a young woman or a Black American friend of yours alone in a room with him? In what madrassa was he radicalized?

@Xinnie The Pooh All ideas are conservative ideas. Read Ecclesiastes.

Haha, you keep it real mane. Leonard Leo ain’t no fuck around shit, he one- hunna ☝🏾percent pure catholic old school breed. He strikes as a magical creature in that sweet spot after brown vs board of edu. But before Miranda. The place is good for white men, hell even Catholics are good but not the presidency, 56-60’. ‘Umerica’ be lookin’ like Shia alawite Syria, Sunni Iraq, Aparthied South Africa haha 🤣

Where the heck is his opinion online?

@@RNA0ROGER www.oyez.org You can read his dissent as well as hear his oral dissent at the case announcement.

Search for the opinion at Scotusblog.com

cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep487/usrep487654/usrep487654.pdf

originalism is astrology for law types

That ideology is flawed because we shouldn’t blindly follow the constitution. Even the founding followers left provisions in to amend or change it. A lot of scalia’s decisions came from pure biased interpretations of the constitution ie his dissent in roe v wade, justices had to use their own judgment to decide whether life begins at conception or birth and that the constitution says nothing about abortion, therefore it should be left up to the states... but it SHOULDNT be left up to the states because having the right to your own body should be guaranteed for each individual.

Quite the opposite. It’s not blind obedience to the constitution that is at stake. It’s the overt willingness to misinterpret the constitution to fit your ends that proves why the Supreme Court should defer to the constitution. Justice Scalia was absolutely correct.

@@garbonomics perfectly said! sad how people like @jaylin jamerson see it that way. we are heading to a generation where people are misinterpreting things because of "perception" , "political correctness", feelings etc. losing site to common sense as well.

@@Jaylinjamerson your entire argument is flawed. First, Justice Scalia wasn’t even a member of the Court when Roe v. Wade was decided. Second, it was the majority in that case who literally made up a new “right” within the 14th Amendment - the “right to privacy.” Where do you find any mention of privacy in the Constitution? Nowhere. It doesn’t exist. Any mention in the contemporary writings of the amendment’s authors? Nope. Dozens of states had laws outlawing abortion by the time the 14th Amendment was passed, yet none of them were overturned by the 14th Amendment for more than 100 years because that clearly wasn’t its purpose. How about today? The NSA and CIA secretly collect data on citizens without any regard for “privacy.” Has the Court put a stop to any of that? Hell no! You could make an argument that the 9th Amendment applied to Roe, but it’s complete BS to say that the 14th Amendment gives women a right to murder their children.

@@Jaylinjamerson Ya and there is a process to change it, which is not judicial. For every "good" that the Court has created, I can list you a "bad". Wickard v. Filburn is a good example of how astoundingly stupid a set of judges can be, even within SCOTUS. Imagine being told by the government you can't grow a crop beyond a quota that they set, even if the crop was grown for personal consumption. SCOTUS voted unanimously to do just that.

Wrong.

Does Congress have the appropriate framework? At first, they have a suspicion, but without investigation of the suspicion, they don't have enough to remove.

@@Achill101 they do but they lack what the law enforcement is suppose to exhibit. too partisan to do the right thing and congress doesnt even know the technicalities of the law.

@@kasimk4 - I would expect many in Congress to understand the law, as there are many lawyers in congress, and some to understand even the technicalities, as they were prosecutors, like Trey Gowdy. But they don't have investigators today and no way to make plea bargains to bring light into a crime complex. And, of course, they are partisan, but so is the leadership of the administration, too.

@@Achill101 true and thats what differentiates them from doj. we expect congress to be partisans and doj not to be. congress cant be trusted because of it and doj should.

Yes, exactly! Lmao🇺🇸

The last words made me burst out crying realizing it’s true.

Scalia was wrong. We need independent counsels because so many high government officials have been corrupt. What was unconstitutional was the courts interference in Bush v Gore. They learned their lesson and demurred on Trump and Gulianis perversion of our laws.

He was a bizarre, unbalanced, emotional ideologue who allowed his personal ideology to invade his already poor constitutional reasoning.

The Translator I not American but do like Scalia.

John Bull He went by the United States Constitution and the amendments. He truly a Justice that he knew the forefathers minds and used his knowledge of the Law

@@thomascarlier4930 hey Thomas do you think the Constitution is a living and breathing document that should grow and change with society because it was written couple hundred years ago.

@PracticalTech some laws were made for that time SOME. for and example, you have the right to bear arms. When the Constitution was written did they for see that one man can have a small hand held gun that can kill 50 people in 20 seconds?? And what do they mean by arms does that mean a tank?what I'm saying is that when I say it's a living breathing document that it should be adjusted adjusted for the times. Well I guess it is somewhat like that through amendments.. thanks for responding

Justice Scalia was a corrupt varmint.

this wasn't Scalia taking a narrow view, this was Scalia understanding the wisdom that was built into his version of the constitutional process. Like every other Justice, Scalia had his own particular line of reasoning which was not the only way to see things.

@@deltasquared7777 agreed. Which is the fault of going about the situation just to reach a judgment. Scalia wanted a reform of the investigation to be had to where a better way to process things should be implemented but of course when it’s for political gain the people in power just want a verdict so they can seem right and look like heroes and appeal to the masses who don’t know the intricate details to be made for such a process. Of course that is how politics are used in the mainstream media. Leaving out the entirety of the situation and only pointing towards what helps a certain narrative for their political agenda

It reminded me of people saying Karl Marx was right in diagnosing some problems but wrong about the solution to said problems.

Best of the 20th century and in U.S. History, Scalia imo ranks up there with our founding fathers. Brilliant mind!

@Vincent Cuttolo Interesting footnote of history, President Reagan had both Scalia and Bork in mind for the appointment. He made the "political" decision to appoint Scalia first because he believed with Bork's long ties to D.C. (e.g., Solicitor General,...), he would have no problem appointing Bork on the next go around. It turns out that Senator Kennedy called in every "chit" at his disposal to turn Judge Bork from a proper noun to the verb you mentioned ("Borked"). The then Senior Senator from Massachusetts knew that Bork and Scalia combined on the Supreme Court would change history, and felt compelled to not allow that to happen. The hearings associated with the Judge Bork confirmation process, engineered by Senator Kennedy, obviously, with then Senator Biden's agreement, served to "poison the well." The people of this country are still feeling the effects of that process and that battle,...

Whoa there, you're missing a digit from your number.

Whoa there, you're missing a digit from your number.

It's a shame they killed him.

It’s not getting any better. Well said

All though the past couple weeks seem to be a glimmer of hope….I hope your comment wasn’t intent on casting shade on the recent decisions. If so then you may wanna read your comment a hundred times over and then read the constitution a hundred times over.

@@danielfioretti5049 no need to cast shade on recent decisions--they are politically shady enough on their own.... I truly miss and respect the wisdom and balance of Justice Scalia, even though I don't always agree with his decisons.

You know people make this claim because a case has political overtones....but political overtones is far different than actually purely political. Many people who are for abortion for example have never read a SCOTUS decision much less cared to consider the legal reasoning.

He was most likely the nemesis of Obama.

What is the difference both legally and in terms of practice?

@Space Dandy Thank you for that concise clarification.

@@1981lashlarue VEEERY true!!!!

But how do you investigate the issue to determine whether the president should be removed? Based on Scalia you have to impeach the president just to investigate issue during the Senate trial.

@@GizmoMaltese Congress can pass an amendment that allows for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the President who cannot be terminated.

@@GizmoMaltese The founding fathers gave us the articles of impeachment, therefore we DO NOT need additional procedures. By matter of belief alone, does the Congress have authority to impeach a President WITHOUT an investigation so to say otherwise, that an investigation is needed BEFORE impeachment ignores precedent.

@@thestation4768 The reality is impeaching a president without an investigation is impractical. Every president would be impeached. You have to use some level of practicality and common sense when interpreting the constitution. Not being able to investigate issues before impeachment is silly.

@@GizmoMaltese Could it be that our founding fathers believed that only the most blatant acts of criminality should grounds for impeachment? Thus, eliminating any need for an investigation.

His views on the 4th is mine!!!!

@@bryonwatkins1432 I actually break with him there. I do not agree with Kyllo (and I don't agree with Katz either because I do think the 4th Amendment has a connection to physical trespass), I do not agree with his dissent in Maryland v. King, and there are some others I don't agree with either. There are a fair amount of his opinions on this subject I agree with, though, like Jardines because even an entry onto the curtilage represents a physical trespass.

His legal philosophy was both brilliant in its simplicity and humble in its effect.

i need the name of the background instrumental!

@M Oscar No.

Does no one on the right ever bring themselves up by their boot straps like they want everyone else to? Justice Gorsuch of course had a parent high in government but I’m sure he thinks nothing of his privilege.

@@cainpitt What's the relevance or point of that comment?

1981lashlarue well I was browsing RU-vid, was recommended to watch this video on Scalia, started watching it and was surprised Neil Gorsuch had a mother high in the Reagan administration. Then I saw this parent comment where it is mentioned mother is in this video. That got me to thinking about my distaste for nepotism and privilege in high levels of government and the inherent hypocrisy the privileged class displays when they tell poor people to just work hard and pull themselves up without the slightest hint of acknowledgment that may just maybe they got where they were not because they’re so smart and hard working but because they had some help from their parents like Gorsuch. Sorry for my run on sentence and i have no idea why and comment on RU-vid needs relevance. It’s the Internet for gods sake.

@@cainpitt I sense envy

well, i guess you did not watch the clip. the constitution already have provision against rogue presidents. The problem is what do you mean by going rogue'? Is that going against your political beliefs or going against popular opinion.

Well these were the same founders that saw black people as being worth only as much as 3/5 of a white person

@@DeliriousKnife no. black were counted as 3/5 cause if not it will increase the representation of proslavery south.

@@Ekim1740 well that's looking at a glass half full. I think that we can both agree that slaves shouldn't have been counted, in part or in whole, towards representation. It's unfortunate that the founders needed to comprise on this, and I think that's what Sean is going for here.

@@brianhan9483 well the pt is they did not see them as 3/5 of a person like the stupid comment talking about. democrats want to count black slave to increase their representation but at the same time they dont want them to vote. Thats why many democrat initiative like gun control was primarily against black americans owning a gun to defend themselves from people who are lunching them.

Yet another brilliant piece of Reagan's brilliant legacy...the nomination of Scalia.

@Liberty AboveAllElse Pls share. 2cent for your mind

Whitewater too. It’s all crap

@Liberty AboveAllElse.... and the idiot Journalist ask.... which train..

lol... you saw the journalists that asked Kelly..5x...". which river....". ha ha.. thrown under the bus...... mnbc wld ask which bus..? chicken cross the road..... cnn wld asked which road...? ha ha

Exactly!

Once again it seemed like Justice Scalia was simply saying to Congress, "That's your job. Have the courage to do it" Sometimes it does seem like Congress doesn't mind damaging the structure of the separation of powers if it means evading responsibility. Everyone likes authority, somewhat fewer like responsibility.

@@Russell_Huston That’s EXACTLY what he’s saying!!!! Same thing with the sentencing committee (see.... Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989))!!!!

You do know that Pildes probably gave one interview that the editors of this video cut in pieces that are shown mixed with the other interviews, don't you? If you wanted to judge Pildes, you would need to watch the whole original material and, from there, decide if he's repetitious and fruitless.

@@Achill101 Speculation.

His whiny unsupported criticism....just because he was right about some parts and I am not smart enough to understand the rest doesn't mean he was right about everything. Wimpy E. Coyote.

@@Achill101 lol says you woke-ist woke. lol

His legal philosophy was both brilliant in its simplicity and humble in its effect.

Reagan also appointed pro-choice Sandra Day O'Connor based on identity politics - soley because she would be the first woman on the court.

Terrible president. Not likely to get removed politics a form of infection.

with one major caveat. there is a difference between "independent counsel"...and "special councel". Scalia never had the opportunity to rule on what replaced the independent counsel that converted to "special councel". Some of the arguments are similar...but given the special counsel is fundamentally and mechanically different than the independent counsel and how it is formed and from what basis in constitutional powers (or limits)...we cannot really find his dissent in olsen to have clear application into matters of the special counsel or of that involving the investigation of President Trump...which I WILL REMIND< was based on a manufactured FRAUD run by both members of congress, clinton, AND THE DOJ! Scalia, had he been alive to rule on the many lawsuits involving russia russia russia fraud would have very likely demanded to see fisa court records...and he would have determined AS THE DOJ CONCEALED FOR 4 YEARS that it was manufactured bullshit. His clue would have been the absence of any credible wood's files AND the unlawful surveillance order to people in "his orbit" up to and including the CIA asset, carter page who was PLANTED in his wheelhouse, given that the DOJ AND CONGRESS HAD ALREADY BANNED THE "about clause" of the surveillance powers (17 of 702). Scalia would have shredded most of every single lawsuit and challenge made by the DOJ. If you want to know the truth...stop watching tv. You were conned by the FBI/DOJ/DOD/CIA and the media was complicit in manufacturing false allegations of "collusion" and narratives involving criminal conspiracy. scalia was no fool and he could not be compromised and blackmailed from prior corrupt acts. That is not true with a majority of the jurist during impeacment. these are facts...undisputed. Most Americans have the heads so far up their asses over orange man bad and mean tweets, they were and continue to be the blissful idiots who refused to even notice that unelected officials were abusing the most dangerous powers given by congress. not one single criminal in this conspiracy has experienced justice. Barr was the bondo...Durham was and is the spray paint.

Irish cops are arrogant bigots. Always have been.

Born in Ireland, emigrated and became a cop in Boston, and THEN you went on to be a rancher in Oklahoma? I hope you know how to tell a story because brother, whether you know it or not, you’ve got stories to tell!!

Scalia died of a heart attack, how morbidly obese was Scalia?

@@abcdefghijklmno7384 He was on the heavier side but certainly not morbidly obese.

When I was in law school, I wouldn't have noticed and wouldn't have cared wether or not there was ditzy music as long as I found the legal issue being addressed to be interesting.

Who cares, meaningless nitpicking.

I had to play my own, not the same.

Because of this decision Congress can appoint a special prosecutor who works independent of the Department of Justice if Congress wants to investigate the President or someone in the Executive branch. Scalia said that the President should have full control over the DOJ which would including all federal law enforcement officials, investigators and prosecutors. Scalia says that Congress does have power to remove the President through impeachment if Congress feels that the President is keeping the DOJ from doing their job against the President or other executive officials. So Scalia believes that Congress does not need the unconstitutional power of appointing a special prosecutor. Both the President and the Supreme Court justices can be removed from office through impeachment by Congress so through impeachment Congress has a check on the highest powers in the executive and judicial branches.

@@SportsOnTheSide ,thank you for the explanation.

It might’ve been possible to overthrow a government with armed citizens in 1776, but it was near impossible less than 100 years later in 1861 and it’s entirely impossible now. I support the second amendment, but let’s not pretend its to protect from tyrannical government. It’s not.

@@especiallyabsent it very much would be if we ever cross that rubicon. armed citizens far exceed government officers and military. not that those today would even engage in war against citizens but there simply wouldnt be enough govt personnel to oppose the armed citizenry.

@endorphinjunkie. Who the hell is the US always so scared of? It seems like a country of snowflakes being frightened of the boogieman constantly. I know money in politics and FOX news is responsible for much of this frail state, but I wish you all courage beyond violence for the future..

@@especiallyabsent must not know history the south came close to victory many times and was so close to d.c they could smell the shit if it wasn't for some brilliant generals and only marginal people running the south they could have won look at how worried Lincoln was about losing and how he won the election based off 1 small victory

@@Apolloneek I think you’re missing the point. The south didn’t win. They believed the government was depriving them of their property, and they lost. Which makes them losers. Losers then, losers now. The confederate flag is the flag of losers. Racist, whiny losers.

I think you're wrong. They are all so experienced, even a junior member of the Court is at the very top of their profession and has years and years of experience. The experience, plus the environment fostered by the other Justices, I don't think there is any pressure from any of them to go with the flow instead of making your own honest conclusions. So I think courage is the wrong word, it's just impressive to be correct when you're the lone dissenter.

@@yonatanben-chaim9747 I hear you, but I think you're being unrealistic. Any time someone ascends to a highly exclusive club of the absolutely top, most highly talented group of experts, there has got to be an intimidation factor should it come to standing alone in opposition. I refer not only to the SCOTUS, but to any group in rarified air. Could be a world leader among Allies, or a head coach or owner of a major league team. When you're the new guy in town, and literally everyone else thinks you're wrong, that would normally be quite intimidating. Far easier to just quietly go along.

Ceded??

The state with the highest crime rate is Alaska. The next is New Mexico. The third is Tennessee. Crime is not a partisan issue, where “democrats” allow more crime than “republicans.” That’s a tired talking point that’s been run up since the 80s. That said, I sincerely don’t understand the connection between democratic “crime rates” and the special counsel. Whatever. Progressives wanting to make bureacracies in order to skirt around congressional authority? All of the progressive ideas I’ve seen have been rooted in legislative ideas. The “Green New Deal”, Roe v. Wade being legislated, increasing the minimum wage, Medicare for All, these are all things theyre proposing for Congress in order to be legislated. Further, people DO hold people accountable for creating regulations. That was a whole reason why Democrats lost the House and Senate and why Trump ran on cutting regulations. I’d also like to remind you that it was a Republican that created the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress has been TRYING to do it’s job. The current administration has simply been ignoring subpoenas and dismissing all watchdogs. That’s the entire idea of this case and the law in question, when an executive branch uses it’s power to simply refuse Congressional checks there still needs to be a way to hold the executive branch accountable. To me, it sounds like you take a lot of talking points from Tucker Carlson, but you like to think of yourself as the pragmatic conservative. Scalia was the lone dissent of eight other justices, justices who have studied the law for decades. Just because his defense was powerful does not mean it was right. I hope you keep studying that Constitution, though.

@@DeliriousKnife Tucker Carlson wasn't out of high school when I started seeing through Progressives... Baltimore. Chicago. New Orleans. Washington DC. Detroit. New York. The crime rates are high. The use of guns for crimes are ridiculous. The ratio of minorities to whites arrested and convicted of crime is everything the race baiters need to cry out against racism... All generational Progressive strongholds, magnificent examples of what corruption and treasonous government can do to the People and still get elected by blaming other people for their crimes.

@@DeliriousKnife BTW, I said "Progressive", not "Democrat". There's Progressives on both sides of the aisle. Just as Barack Obama said, After 3/11, George W. Bush used the fear that gripped this nation to establish our own Gestapo, The Department of Homeland Security AND pass the Patriot Act. Warrantless wiretaps? Suspension of Habeas Corpus in cases of terrorism? The Republican Party may not be as riddled with Progressives as the Democrat Party is, but EVERY Progressive uses the means and methods that they believe will bring about their Utopian (read: Socialist) dreams in this nation. That's why Dems are called Communists and 'Pubs are called Fascists. Bot Communism and Fascism are Socialist, only differing on whether business should be privately or publicly owned. If you haven't figured out that both parties are actually gaming out how they're going to work We, the People, that all we're seeing is theater, carefully scripted and acted out to get the footsoldiers of each party to do their bidding... Are you actually paying attention?

You may have noticed that Congress hasn't done its job for at least the last 105 years. And they _won't_ do their job until We The People do _our_ job, which is vote them out for not doing their job. If anything the Supreme Court over the last century has made it progressively easier for Congress to abdicate its responsibility for making law and put it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats populating the Executive Branch -- and SCOTUS has done that largely through evolutionist judicial philosophy. Scalia spent his entire tenure trying to pull the Court back to the textualist philosophy that was largely followed in the Judiciary before evolutionist judges began to permeate every level of the court system.

It's Justice Scalia reading from the bench at the opinion announcement. Here's the link to the full audio: www.oyez.org/cases/1987/87-1279

@@TheFederalistSociety Scalia was garbage as we're his rulings. A true POS when it came to actual innocence.

The court lacks discipline. They don't do their duty as much as what they want. It happens all over the bench nation wide. Made me quit law.

Austin Blasingame: www.austinblasingame.com/

Women can't handle that our founding fathers never intended women to be in politics "all MEN are created equal" so you have this academic cover up

@@thestation4768 But they intended for the constitution to be a living document and amendable, so when the 19th amendment came around it’s exactly what the founders wanted :)

There should be a constitutional amendment to curb abuse of power and the unitary executive power of President by providing more checks and balances by and with congress. Or to propose a constitutional amendment to vest the executive power in a executive council which headed by President, instead to vest the executive power in President alone.

1. It _”is incorrect to assert that there is a legal consensus that Scalia was right”_ Really? How many articles can you find praising Morrison? How many disparaging it? Justice Kagen, herself the antithesis to Scalia, even said his opinion was “one of the greatest dissents ever written and every year it gets better.” Of course Congress eventually realized the error of their ways and refused to re-authorize the Ethics in Government Act, opting instead for a statutory scheme completely within the permissible limits of Scalia’s dissent. 2. . _it's difficult to see how Executive Power was unduly compromised_ Unduly compromised?? The Constitution provides that the Chief Executive’s role not be compromised AT ALL. This was Scalia’s entire point. 3. _That a law could be abused, including for partisan purposes, is not sufficient reason for the Court to strike it down_ You devote the majority of your comment to the potential abuse argument. Do you really think Scalia’s basis for striking down the act was because it “could be abused”? It was not. His rational was simple and pure. The Act was contrary to Art II of the Constitution. Really not complicated. 4. "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in _a President of the United States_ Art. II, § 1, cl. 1 (emphasis Scalia’s).

@@wernerfoerster3666 I wonder if you understand that both the office of the Attorney General and the Justice Department itself were created by *acts of Congress*. Legislation. Subsequent legislation then defined further their scopes of powers specifically. This issue is no different, my friend. It's no surprise that Morrison v. Olson was overwhelmingly agreed with only one emotional nutcase against it. The reason why there are articles defending his dissent has nothing to do with constitutional reasoning; it's simply an odd fetish issue for far-right ideologues who do not understand the role of Congress in structuring the federal government, and their poor understanding is surprising, awkward and shameful. I have no doubt that many of the spineless sycophants who defend his bizarre dissent would fellate Scalia if given the chance.

@@briandavid6879 1. FYI: Your argument loses credibility right off the bat when you name-call and employ vulgarities as to one of the most brilliant jurists of all time. It shows you are too emotionally invested and have abandoned all logic and reason. A common malady of today's woke left. 2. I'll bet you think the DOJ is "independent" of the President too. 3. Congress is merely the funding mechanism. It appears that you are saying that since Congress appropriates funds to the executive branch, that they somehow derive some sort of decision making or substantive power over it as a result. Of course, that's nonsense. "Shameful" using your vernacular. Congressional "oversight" regarding how appropriated money is spent, IS NOT substantive authority. You seem not to understand this concept. 4. You need to read up on the THREE branches of government - their respective lanes and SEPARATION of powers in general. Maybe start by re-reading my original comment and reference to the Constitution.

@@wernerfoerster3666 Hello, nitz. I think I’d rather die than be ‘woke’; it’s a ridiculous term and ideal, to me. Look, you can remove my colourful language and yet my argument remains; no need to repeat it. Your nostalgia for Nixon and Scalia is blinding you to the obvious. It’s always been interesting to me how the right in US gladly pounced on Clinton with Ken Starr for his indiscretion, using exactly this legislation just before it sunset, despite everything you’re throwing out here… I mean you really do want it both ways; you’re confused and hypocritical. Scalia was an ideologue and uber-religious buffoon who did not allow himself to see the key role that Congress plays in structuring the federal government. That’s fact. More mistaken would be a tough thing to reach. I’m confident that in the future we’ll see reason restored. It’s very satisfying to me that he was all alone in that emotional, mistaken corner.

@@briandavid6879 1. Okay, you don't subscribe to the American founding principles of separation of power between the 3 branches of government. Got it. I would suggest you propose a constitutional amendment providing for a 4th branch - that of Independent Counsel. 2. You obfuscate the original issue with many tangents. To re-center you: POTUS, (VIA HIS VARIOUSTHREE LETTER AGENCIES) HAS EXCLUSIVE PROVINCE OVER ENFORCING FEDERAL LAWS (PROSECUTIONS). PERIOD. THERE IS NO SHARING OF THIS POWER WITH CONGRESS. 2a. If you think POTUS is corrupt then the Constitution provides for this as well. Removal. Like Scalia - brilliant in its simplicity. 3. I never said the Independent Counsel statute was correct visa vie Ken Star. Yes, it took the Repubs' and Starr to shake the Dems out of their attempted hypocrisy to demonstrate that a prosecutor who was not under the direct and total control of the Chief Executive is contrary to Art 2. That's why they agreed to let the IC statute die on the vine. 4. The problem with folks like you is that you are results oriented. You stomp your foot if you don't get the outcome you desire. The law doesn't (or shouldn't) work that way. The Constitutional text says what it says (or doesn't say). Scalia was clear on this ... rendering many opinions which were favorable to criminals ... certainly not furthering conservatism.

Yes it's like calling the principle of least action in physics simple despite all it can produce.

The whole Supreme Court has that problem on both sides. Justice Ginsburg is the most extreme example of that. She was a philosopher deity of the left