John Bolton is Unconstitutional

[Earl Maltz]

Assuming that Marty is correct on the law in the abstract does he believe 
that judicial intervention is appropriate?

At 06:45 AM 8/4/2005 -0400, Marty Lederman wrote:
>"it wants to be pointed out that the courts where these arguments were 
>made did not buy them"
>
>"It" can't always get what it wants . . . but in this case it did:  At the 
>end of my post I do "point out" that the courts have not been receptive, 
>and I even link to the one decision to have actually addressed the issue 
>-- that of the en banc court in Stephens.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:JMHACLJ at aol.com>JMHACLJ at aol.com
>To: <mailto:marty.lederman at comcast.net>marty.lederman at comcast.net ; 
><mailto:conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:40 AM
>Subject: Re: John Bolton is Unconstitutional
>
>In a message dated 8/4/2005 6:25:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
><mailto:marty.lederman at comcast.net>marty.lederman at comcast.net writes:
>The first is discussed in great detail in several briefs that my 
>co-counsel and I filed on behalf of Senator Kennedy in cases dealing with 
>last year's "recess appointment" of U.S. Court of Appeals Judge William 
>Pryor. The most detailed of those briefs can be found 
><http://balkin.blogspot.com/Stephens.Reply.FINAL.corrected.pdf>here and 
><http://balkin.blogspot.com/FranklinFinal.pdf>here. The basic argument is 
>that the term "the Recess" refers solely to recesses between "Sessions" of 
>the Senate, and not to intra-session adjourments, such as 
><http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S9588&dbname=2005_record>the 
>one the Senate began last Friday.
>
>The last person to reject an argument solely because no court has bought 
>it would be me.
>
>But, it wants to be pointed out that the courts where these arguments were 
>made did not buy them.
>
>Also, I found suspect Teddy's decision to go the amicus route after having 
>threatened litigation, except that I suspect his wise legal counsel told 
>him he would, ultimately, fail.
>
>Jim Henderson
>Senior Counsel
>ACLJ
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.