She does have facts on her side. She has the plain meaning of the statute. It doesn't ussually get better than that.
And, her silence over the years on the length of the appointment in question leads me to conclude that she tacitly agreed with the Clinton Administration's interpretation. She picked poor ground on which to empty her magazine
Her silence would not affect the law.
She has no facts on her side, only a very weak interpretation of law.
She does have facts on her side. She has the plain meaning of the statute. It doesn't ussually get better than that.
You are confusing facts with law. In any honest court (I'll admit they are few and far between), a finding of fact would be that the appointment was made so as to expire last month--this is a documented and undisputed fact. The judge would have to issue a finding of law--i.e., an interpretation of the statute.
And, her silence over the years on the length of the appointment in question leads me to conclude that she tacitly agreed with the Clinton Administration's interpretation. She picked poor ground on which to empty her magazine.
Her silence would not affect the law.
Of course her silence would not affect the law. It could, however, affect the facts. There was tacit agreement, at a minimum, of the appointment being made so as to expire last month.
No kidding?
One word: estoppel.
If during the time that she has been on that commission ONE PERSON was appointed to fulfill somebody else's term, and she didn't raise holy hell, she, by her own actions, certified the policy.
Besides all that, according to your interpretation, if that policy was followed, the only thing people would have to do is to resign a day before a president leaves office and he could reappoint them and they could serve forever.
I do not believe that is the INTENT of the POLICY. And neither will the court.