Well howdy, Trump-cult kids, it's Socialism again and today's topic is fail "best and brightest picks."

You high-fiving and hyucking over Aileen Cannon dismissing the classified documents case? Good stuff, huh? Well... don't get too comfortable because she just messed up... bigly, monumentally. Come with me, let me walk you through it. While it's still up for debate whether she's corrupt and in the bag for Trump or just too stupid for the job, what's not up for debate is that her dismissal of the classified documents case on grounds that bringing in Jack Smith violates the Appointments Clause doesn't fly. But there's no need to take my word for it; read the Appointments Clause for yourself:; Article II, Section 2, Clause 2; He [POTUS] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of; the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. Now, let's look at Cannon's written reasoning:; “The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior; officers. The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers.”; See how she biffed it? No? Okay, who appointed Jack Smith? It certainly wasn't Jack Smith; no, it was Merrick Garland so cries of usurpation are just noise. Also, Merrick Garland is a Head of Department -specifically, the DOJ. And what does the Appointments Clause say about Heads of Department? That the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper... ...in the Heads of Departments. Meaning, by extension, her reason for dismissal is an assertion that Jack Smith's appointment is unlawful -but, naturally, the foundational premise is flawed and as you guys are probably catching a case of TLDR right about now, I'll just cut to the chase:; 28 CFR § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel. The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—; (a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and; (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. Soooo yeah... there's the federal law *a la "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers"* authorizing Merrick Garland to appoint Jack Smith. Oh, and in case you're screaming "what about; approval by the Senate?!" the Appointments Clause only says the Senate has to sign off on the POTUS' picks -nothing at all in there about a Department Head's selections. But it doesn't stop there, no. She also made the mistake of stating that her ruling only applies in the classified documents case and not in the D.C. election interference case... except she's a federal judge... and, much like the SCOTUS, a federal judge's rulings apply nationwide. Ergo, if Merrick Garland's appointment of Jack Smith is "unlawful" (it's not, but points for trying) in one case, it's "unlawful" across the board. So, in pretty much one fell derp, she's removed herself from jurisdiction over the; FL case, demonstrated she has no real grasp of the scope of a federal judge's authority, proven she's not competent for the position she holds and all but guaranteed herself a seat on the GTFO catapult. And, as Smith will undoubtedly appeal the without-prejudice dismissal, -quite possibly on grounds of gross jurisprudential incompentence- don't be surprised if her ruling is reversed and the case put right back where it was.