Posted on 09/17/2018 6:58:06 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
For clarity: Q is telling us Sessions sent two Supreme
Court justices a letter that contained the following:
1.Notification that he's about to unrecuse
2.Why he believes he's allowed to unrecuse
3.Asking them for their opinions and feedback
They gave him the all clear.
#QAnon
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
It is a cancer taking over the news forum. They have their own thread in chat, but they still post here to preach the “good news.”
LOL
For the Roberts’ injunction that you wrote about, who brought the action for him to act in a judicial capacity? I am sure it wasn’t Roberts giving legal advice.
Justices do not give legal opinions to the executive branch upon request. What if someone had standing to challenge Sessions un-recusal ... what then?... justices who gave their prior legal opinion to Sessions would have to recuse themselves? Mr Extremist should be in the right about this one.
So he can resign “unrecused” and be in good-standing with Trump when he leaves.
Remember, we’re just a few weeks before the elections, and Sessions needs to clear the table for his replacement while Trump is out campaigning on behalf of senators and congresspeople.
If this all pans out, and I hope it does, a lot of people here are going to eat a lot of EEE crow!
It sure is making this place seem more and more like a nut farm.
It’s not like Free Republic hasn’t banished kooks and crazy news sites in the past. We seriously need a cleanup on isle 6 here.
p
Agreed, they do not give advisory opinions...ever.
If this all pans out, and I hope it does, a lot of people here are going to eat a lot of EEE crow!
**************************
Does EEE crow fly?
It is posted as a VANITY. Do not read it if you do not like it. Thank you.
Unrecusal, do you suppose Rosenstein will allow it?
Awesomeness I told ya soooo9....
Not true. Only 2 SC Justices were asked to comment. And among equal branches of government, SC Justices are free to give remarks on matters not formally before the Court.
I should know better than to jump into this discussion, but... Isn't recusal, or not, an ethical consideration rather than a legal one?
We know that many involved is the witch hunt have conflicts of interest and ethical conflicts, but who have chosen not to recuse themselves (Mueller, Rosenstein, and most of Mueller's staff of lawyers, etc.)
We often see discussions of what SCOTUS judge, or other court judge should recuse themselves from a case, but they almost never do.
Could it be a SCOTUS judge might give a personal opinion on an ethical question, which seems to be a decision only for the individual with the potential conflict of interest?
I think a lot of people are going to be revealed to be very dirty. Some will be prosecuted and go to prison.
It seems to me that Sessions could use this as a very visible and value reason to step in and get things under control.
Will he? I just can’t say.
I think the Democrats are refusing to adhere to Constitutional guidelines, and something has to be done about it.
We’ll see...
BS - but a damn good idea
Q is saying the letter is from Sessions to the S.C. regarding FISA warrant. Roberts is in charge of Overseeing FISA court. The speculation has been Roberts had to recuse himself for some reason, making Thomas in charge of oversight of FISA warrants
Sessions doesn’t need advice.
But if he is going to un-recusehimself it oils have to be based on evidence of criminal activity/clear violations of law by RR & Mueller.
If that’s been substantiated going to the sc would be the right move to minimize objections.
Is that English?
Could it be a SCOTUS judge might give a personal opinion on an ethical question, which seems to be a decision only for the individual with the potential conflict of interest?
I don’t know, but I suppose it is possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.