[William Tell]

I didn’t listen to all of it but my take is that Sullivan’s guidance to his chosen amicus to argue against the government is a bridge too far. It goes far beyond just questioning the government about its motion to dismiss.

If Sullivan had just asked for legal guidance on how to proceed then he might have been given some leeway although judges are supposed to have the expertise themselves to research the law.

Perhaps the Appeals Court will, instead of the Writ of Mandamus, order Sullivan to withdraw his request for amicus and proceed based on motions before Sullivan’s court.

I was shocked when Sullivan’s counsel suggested that the amicus would ensure that there were two parties to the process, completely ignoring the defense. What Sullivan is proposing is that there be three parties to the dispute, one of them chosen by the judiciary. How very creative.