Comments on: Michael McConnell v. Martin Flaherty on Whether the Pay Czar’s Appointment Violates the Appointments Clause

By: Myrtle Beach Attorney

Myrtle Beach Attorney — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:25:34 +0000

If you would like to find information about Colorado Springs Real Estate, visit the Real Estate Book, the web

By: Guy

Guy — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:09:44 +0000

sitzpinkler: Speaking of “optics,” there’s some commentary here.

I can really identify with the paradigm of unfavoring such stilted buzzwords. Perhaps if we make an ocular inspection of the pros and cons we can actualize a more cromulent approach.

By: sitzpinkler

sitzpinkler — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:47:36 +0000

Cornellian: The optics just don’t look good.

Speaking of "optics," there's some commentary here.

By: Cornellian

Cornellian — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:21:04 +0000

Somehow, I think even the Republican party will hesitate before getting behind a Wall St. banker complaining that his pay cut is unconstitutional. The optics just don’t look good.

By: JohnF

JohnF — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:34:43 +0000

Surely if the czar lacks the authority to do this, Geithner can just do it all himself with a slight change in the emergency rules. There is no way they will subject a pay czar to Senate approval, I would think.

By: Crunchy Frog

Crunchy Frog — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:24:11 +0000

troll_dc2: What is the likelihood that someone whose pay was cut will challenge the reduction in federal court? Such a person seems to me to be the only one (along with members of his class) to have standing to sue.

I'd say pretty high, considering that the Appointments Clause seems to be one that is being taken seriously lately.

By: troll_dc2

troll_dc2 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:12:53 +0000

What is the likelihood that someone whose pay was cut will challenge the reduction in federal court? Such a person seems to me to be the only one (along with members of his class) to have standing to sue.