You know the Appointments Clause argument that all the Russians and Roger Stone associates have been making against Mueller, which doesn’t work vis-a-vis Mueller because the Special Counsel is not a principal officer? Why doesn’t that work for real against Matt Whitaker?
It would at the least be very awkward for Justice Thomas to vote to sustain Whitaker’s appointment. He wrote this last year. supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf… 
Hamilton gets it. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/f…
Katyal and Conway get it. nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opi…
Vladeck with the opposing point of view. nyti.ms/2DbJx73
The rubber hits the road here, I think: Thomas, Katyal, and Conway say appointing someone to act as atty general *temporarily* falls under the principal officer half of the Appointments Clause. Vladeck and an 1898 case, US v Eaton, say it falls under the inferior officer half.
US v Eaton concerned a US consul in Bangkok (Senate confirmed) who got too sick to stay in the tropical climate and asked Eaton, his aide (not senate confirmed), to take over the consular office while he took ship for home on medical leave. scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c…
Does a foreign affairs case that turned on exigent necessity halfway around the world, where the president did not select the replacement, supply the rule for a discretionary expulsion of the attorney general in Washington in order for the president to install his toady?
Asha said it better than I did
