Yes, and it's a pretty interesting one.
Unfortunatly, the state of this forum is such that of 135 posts only three even obliquely address the arguments made in the article.
Most just declare that since it isn't favorable to Trump it must be wrong, Constitutionally uninformed and a betrayal.
"I’m enjoying reading two things en route to Phoenix. The first http://www.mitfordbooks.com “At Home In Mitford,” which is genuinely a joy: funny, calming, easy to disappear into, and full of wisdom. And various takes on The Vacancies Act and the acting AG. The latter is really a complicated issue with quite a lot of good analysis —as opposed to results-driven conclusions— but here is a practical take: It might —might— be an unconstitutional overreach. Why not then dispatch @SecAzar or @SecretaryAcosta or DNI Dan Coats and avoid the argument. They can counsel with the current Acting AG knowing he understands the state of the department, but an unquestionably valid appointment simply avoids all the misery of an adverse decision down the road and the consequences that would follow for every decision taken. Why make an easy one hard. Meanwhile nominate the new AG-to-be, appoint if necessary during recess, and be done with it. BTW: That new AG should be Judge Luttig as I’ve argued before today and often enough. The pressing issues at DOJ need clarity on the department, a brilliant legal mind, and certainty of authority, not controversy about the Acting AG. Perhaps if @senatemajldr @LindseyGraham @SenTomCotton and some of @realDonaldTrump lawyers-in-the-Senate friends could sit down with him and kick it around, this could resolve quickly. Now, back to Mitford."