The special counsel's statement announcing the appeal reinforces that Cannon's ruling is out of step with other courts and that Smith isn't operating as a rogue.
In their recent Presidential Immunity ruling there was a long response by Clarence Thomas that included a section questioning the legality of Jack Smith’s appointment. Which is the same reasoning Cannon gives in her ruling.
The dissenting opinion in their recent Chevron Deference ruling criticises Thomas and others for using this tactics repeatedly to overturn laws they don’t like. They write opinions about one thing but include a bunch of questions about something only tangentially related. Then they’ll suddenly take up a case that seems to centre exactly around that question they had. A case that was only filed after the initial ruling.
Cannon using Thomas’ words is no mistake. It’s the way these judges have been legislating from the bench.
The dissenting opinion in their recent Chevron Deference ruling criticises Thomas and others for using this tactics repeatedly to overturn laws they don’t like. They write opinions about one thing but include a bunch of questions about something only tangentially related. Then they’ll suddenly take up a case that seems to centre exactly around that question they had. A case that was only filed after the initial ruling.
Cannon using Thomas’ words is no mistake. It’s the way these judges have been legislating from the bench.