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?
It’s spelled out in black and white. If they want to challenge the Constitutionality of it let them pursue that through the courts. But that will take quite some time, longer than they would have on the Comey case.