It was an application of Federal statute. 28 U.S.C. ยง 546 lays it all out in black and white. Bondi and Trump effed up.
So your reading of 546 is that if the Article II authority doesn’t appoint a replacement within 120 days then they lose the ability to appoint and that authority transfers exclusively to the Article III authority? How is that in any way Constitutional?
In your opinion, is there any way, any possibility whatsoever, that this judge got her interpretation of the statute wrong?