Bagster
“I personally like the Sessions unrecusal gambit.”
“Out in the forum several posters assured us that SCOTUS never does such a review and it is therefore all BS. An Jeff is still a loser. So there. Neener, neener, neener.”
I am one of the “several posters” and I can assure you with absolutes 100% certainty that the justices of the Supreme Court do not provide advisory opinions to the attorney general or any other member of the executive or legislative branches of government with respect to recusal issues or any other matter This is not only a matter of sound judicial policy, but also a matter of constitutional law, which limits the power of the federal judiciary to actual cases and controversies (U.S. Const., Art. III, Cl. 1). The fact that Q even put this out there for the Q-Bots to salivate over, is comical. I hope when he graduates from high school and goes to college, he will take a course on the United States Constitution.
PANIC IN DC
SESSIONS CLAS LETTER TO SC JUSTICES 1&2 RE: RECUSAL, UNRECUSAL, AND CLARITY RE: CONFLICTS BASED ON UNCLASSIFIED MATERIAL [TODAY].
HIGHEST COURT AUTHORITY APPROVAL
Q
Just a question...since the Chief Justice has “authority over” the fisa court, could the “highest court authority approval “ refer to the declassification of the fisa court documents?
Not their “approval” of Sessions recusal or unrecusal?
This analysis ignores the role of the Chief Justice as overseer of the FISC - it is in that role that SESSIONS is acting.
Bagster
> “I can assure you with absolutes 100% certainty that the justices of the Supreme Court do not provide advisory opinions to the attorney general or any other member of the executive or legislative branches of government with respect to recusal issues or any other matter. “
On advisory opinions you are correct. Well done.
But on context, you smell. Please take that odiferous intellect outside, somewhere like Daily Kos, or in replies to Trump deranged Twitter bots.
The Q post in question is an important one.
It conveys that Sessions in a classified letter informed two SCOTUS justices the fact that his prior recusal bas been rescinded (in whole or part is classified) and that clarity is requested on conflicts based on declassified material.
Art. 3 Sec. 2
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
We know that Steele is fighting extradition and will lose, we know that Mifsud has been hiding and now has another identity (via his lawyer), we know that Halper will likely force himself into either a diabetic coma or heart attack, and that Downer, Johnson are going down. We know that the Clinton’s have ties going back to Little Rock with Chicom agents and that Chicoms were likely ‘granted’ access to HRC’s servers.
There are many, many more foreign agents to be brought to justice. Since they owe no allegiance to the United States, they are not subject to statutes of treason, they are however subject to trial for espionage.
The facts fit the inference that Sessions is preparing a Petition for Certiorari to have these foreign actors tried by SCOTUS under original jurisdiction. There can be no appeal.
Though you may not be aware of the fact of Dr Edwards' assertion that "Life is so complex, just about any cockamamie explanation will do."
Given Sessions and this upside down/ cattywumpuss National scene, I'd go with my bet on Sessions doing exactly what he said and receiving the reply exactly as he asserted.
For all I know, he may have asked for the personal opinion of a couple of the Justices.
Thanks for your opinion. Now, why are you trolling here? Go back to your shallow echo chamber.
Boom!!! /s