Clarence Thomas Questions Jack Smith’s Appointment

( – The US Supreme Court recently dropped a bombshell ruling in favor of former President Donald Trump by granting presidential immunity for all presidents related to official acts. One justice took it even further by raising questions in the ruling about the legitimacy of Special Counsel Jack Smith leading the cases against the former president on appointment by the current president’s administration.

The concern was raised in the ruling by Justice Clarence Thomas, who questioned the constitutionality of Smith’s appointment by Biden’s Justice Department (DOJ) to lead prosecutions against Trump. Thomas questioned the appointment of Smith as “a private citizen” by Attorney General Merrick Garland to lead prosecutions “of a former president” as Special Counsel “on behalf of the United States.”

According to the justice, he is uncertain if any Special Counsel office was properly “established by Law,” as required by the Constitution. The basis for Thomas’ argument relies on Article II, which grants Congress the power to establish inferior offices in the Executive Branch and not the president, which means the appointment of Smith by the Biden administration is technically unconstitutional.

Thomas says that the point of placing these powers in the hands of Congress was to impose “an important check” on the Executive Branch so the president cannot just “create offices” at leisure. He argues that without establishing the Office of the Special Counsel by law, a private citizen cannot actually “prosecute anyone,” much less a president.

After Smith was appointed, Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised similar contentions as Thomas, noting that appointing him without the Senate’s confirmation violated the Appointments Clause of Article II.

The latest decision by the Supreme Court could result in some of the charges against Trump being dropped from the election interference cases against him by Smith. This secondary opinion could represent another victory for the former president if the Special Counsel “cannot proceed” with the prosecutions. Those cases accuse Trump of trying to interfere with official government proceedings and overturn the 2020 election.

Copyright 2024,