Skip to comments.Supreme Court as a Court of Politics, Not Law - (Explains Judge Sullivan's Intent)
Posted on 05/13/2020 9:20:08 AM PDT by 11th_VA
... There were 35 amicus briefs filed in oppositions to the rescission of DACA. Among them, I could only find 10 that could generously be classified as making serious legal arguments. Within this group, the brief of Administrative Law Scholars was particularly good and is worth reading by those interested in the DACA legal issues.
For the most part, the amicus briefs are naked political documents. Many rely on anecdotes as evidence that would be inadmissible in a court of law. Some attempt to be relevant to law by tacking a legal argument already made by the parties to the end of their political statement. Instead of arguing why the Court should come to the legal conclusion that DACA should stay, most amici argue why the Court should come to the political conclusion that DACA should stay. Amici treat the Supreme Court as a court of politics. And the Court lets itself be treated as a court of politics.
One should keep in mind that the Supreme Court does not open its amicus doors wide for the little people. It is expensive to file an amicus brief. It has to be filed by an attorney who is a member of the court. The brief has to be printed and bound. The amicus brief is a game for insiders and not for the general public.
When the Supreme Court opens its doors to political arguments made by insiders, it is entirely reasonable for the public to view the Court as a political body...
(Excerpt) Read more at cis.org ...
If Sullivan dismisses, then who would appeal it? If Sullivan refuses to dismiss, then Flynn can appeal.
Whatever his intent (and I agree it is pretty clear), his process is naked political. He shifted his standards depending on who was winning the case. Bias judge, not neutral. not by a long shot. EVERYTHING he is doing is part of the “get Flynn” and “get Trump” efforts.
Why couldn’t the DOJ appeal? At this time it is their motion that is being denied. Gen Flynn has spent enough money on legal fees.
DACA was never legal.
Then again neither was the usurper who started it.
But the GOP went along with both.
I think that's the intent - I think we're at the sentencing stage. He wants cover to imprison Flynn (he already pleaded guilty). Then for Trump to pardon.
Everyone keeps looking for a sophisticated way to explain Judge Sullivan’s actions, I think it is a big waste of time and choose to go with the most probable and simple answer:
CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY!!!
The DOJ dismissed the case their is no crime any longer NOTHING for Trump to have to pardon this is INSANITY!!
their = there oops
Yup! Easy to see that this judge is a piece of communist Democrat shi!.
This is a strong move by the judge.
Use his strength against him.
Channel his strength and let him fall to the ground.
All the more reason to release the names of the unmaskers. If Barr wont do it, Grenell should.
Yep, it was never a law.
It was an attempt to create “Executive Law” similar to when Presidents create National Parks by Executive Order.
There were 35 amicus briefs filed in oppositions to the rescission of DACA. Among them, I could only find 10 that could generously be classified as making serious legal arguments. Within this group, the brief of Administrative Law Scholars was particularly good and is worth reading by those interested in the DACA legal issues. For the most part, the amicus briefs are naked political documents. Many rely on anecdotes as evidence that would be inadmissible in a court of law.
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.