State v. R. Thompson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Congress’ appointment procedure for military court judges “is in conformity with the Appointments Clause of the Constitu- tion”
• Holding that there is not an “exclusive criterion for distinguishing between principal and inferior officers”
• holding that the power to “assign” military judges is not the power to “appoint” them, because “Congress has consistently used the word `appoint' ” to vest appointment power for “military po- sitions”
• holding that “where a specific provision conflicts with a general one, the specific governs”
• holding that the power to “assign” military judges is not the power to “appoint” them, because “Congress has con- sistently used the word ‘appoint’ ” to vest appointment power for “military positions”
• explaining that the advice and consent language of article II of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., art. II, § 2, cl. 2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).