What am I not getting? How can this nomination have gotten even this far? I’m not a lawyer.
“By law, the U.S. intelligence chief must have extensive national security expertise, though it is not strictly defined as hands-on intelligence work. Under 50 U.S.C. § 3023, any individual nominated for the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) position is required by federal statute to possess "extensive national security expertise".
Note: “A non-lawyer can legally be appointed as a U.S. Supreme Court judge.”
So hey, in light of this cockamamy Clayton confirmation business maybe I should apply for the next SCOTUS opening?
It's an excellent question, and one that I've heard a number of attorneys asking. My suspicion (and understanding) is that the statutory language is so amorphous, and the standing requirements so unclear, that this particular guardrail is effectively toothless. Clayton would also likely argue that being SDNY US Attorney involved national-security cases, required clearances, etc.
James F. Byrnes who served from 1941 to 1942) was the last justice appointed without attending any law school or earning a formal law degree, having taught himself law and passed the bar independently.
Thanks, Adam. Don Buckter quoted something that's not the statute, so for those who want to see exactly how amorphous 50 USC 3023 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3023 ) is, the first paragraph, (a)(1) says very little: "(1)There is a of National Intelligence who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Any individual nominated for appointment as Director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security expertise."
I wonder if there is a way to challenge the appointment as illegal? It does seem to me that one thing that 'extensive' means beyond any question is "more than zero." Adam has written "Clayton, who has no experience in the intelligence community, ..." That would seem to be zero. And then there's the possible perjury charge.
This criminal cabal needs to go. Sure hope a whole lot of Americans are ready to start voting them out in November. Then fight to get the the winners seated.
Many thanks for the update, Adam. Fingers crossed that Blanche’s nomination advances no further.
The criminal conspiracy continues.
What am I not getting? How can this nomination have gotten even this far? I’m not a lawyer.
“By law, the U.S. intelligence chief must have extensive national security expertise, though it is not strictly defined as hands-on intelligence work. Under 50 U.S.C. § 3023, any individual nominated for the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) position is required by federal statute to possess "extensive national security expertise".
Note: “A non-lawyer can legally be appointed as a U.S. Supreme Court judge.”
So hey, in light of this cockamamy Clayton confirmation business maybe I should apply for the next SCOTUS opening?
It's an excellent question, and one that I've heard a number of attorneys asking. My suspicion (and understanding) is that the statutory language is so amorphous, and the standing requirements so unclear, that this particular guardrail is effectively toothless. Clayton would also likely argue that being SDNY US Attorney involved national-security cases, required clearances, etc.
For the record …
James F. Byrnes who served from 1941 to 1942) was the last justice appointed without attending any law school or earning a formal law degree, having taught himself law and passed the bar independently.
Thanks, Adam. Don Buckter quoted something that's not the statute, so for those who want to see exactly how amorphous 50 USC 3023 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3023 ) is, the first paragraph, (a)(1) says very little: "(1)There is a of National Intelligence who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Any individual nominated for appointment as Director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security expertise."
I wonder if there is a way to challenge the appointment as illegal? It does seem to me that one thing that 'extensive' means beyond any question is "more than zero." Adam has written "Clayton, who has no experience in the intelligence community, ..." That would seem to be zero. And then there's the possible perjury charge.
Adam, is there room her for hope?
RJM Thank you for this helpful add. All best.
Thank you, Adam. I think your last point is your strongest.
So, whaddya think? Should I get fitted for my SCOTUS judicial robe?
Giddyup, sir!
Can you answer the question? Who won the 2020 election? You lose if you tell the truth(!!) under oath! YCMTSU (you can’t make this shit up)!!
Unbelievable.
Shame shame shame on the 51 republican votes
Idiots
Does Clayton still have to appear before Judge Subramanian over the NYT subpoenas issue?
Is it time for a Revolution?
Maybe his incompetence will give the Iranians an opportunity to find and erase Trump.
This criminal cabal needs to go. Sure hope a whole lot of Americans are ready to start voting them out in November. Then fight to get the the winners seated.
Thank you for this important update and posing insightful questions.
But on the other hand.... "at least Clayton has learned a lesson".... right S. Collins (R-Maine)?
Jay Clayton appointed. G-d help us!