Lawyers arguing Monday in front of a Sixth Circuit panel—including one Justice Department attorney—made apparent references to President Donald Trump serving a third term, after the president said that he’d “love” to run for one.
Attorney Robert J. Olson first told the three judges on the Cincinnati-based court that a new administration will be in place “in three years or in seven years.” Then, when DOJ attorney Sean R. Janda argued, he repeated a variation of that line, talking about a change that may occur, “as my friend on the other side said, three years in the future or seven years in the future.”
None of the judges pressed either attorney on those statements.
A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment. Olson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The comments came after Trump said over the weekend on Air Force One that “I would love to do it—I have the best numbers ever,” when asked if he ruled out a run for a third term. The Constitution bars a president from serving more than two terms, but some Trump supporters have urged him to find ways around that prohibition.
‘Three or Seven Years’
The apparent references to the issue came during virtual oral arguments the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in a case about the ability for gun buyers to bypass FBI background checks if they already have a concealed-carry permit from the state of Michigan.
Olson, of Virginia-based William J. Olson PC, made his reference when talking about whether a rescinded Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives advisory from Trump’s first term regarding Michigan’s background checks could be reinstated down the line.
“This president, in three years or in seven years, we’ll have another administration, and if those new leadership, you know, took a different view of this, there’s nothing, there’s zero impediment to this just being put right back in effect,” Olson said.
Janda twice repeated the line in his own form.
“I think even if the court were to think that there were some possibility that, as my friend on the other side said, three years in the future or seven years in the future, ATF were to reassess its views on this question, that just wouldn’t present, or likely wouldn’t present the same controversy that this case presents,” Janda said.
He later said that “if ATF were to reassess again, whether we’re talking three years in the future, seven years in the future, at some hypothetical unknown point, the plaintiffs could certainly challenge that then.”
Some Trump supporters have floated the idea of a different candidate running for president and naming Trump as their running mate, with the understanding that they’d immediately resign and elevate him back into the top job. Trump dismissed that idea, though, saying “it’s too cute.”
First Appeared on
Source link
