~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~It turns out that Flynn amicus John Gleeson once worked with (and allegedly supervised) Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann.
Curious if Gleeson and Weissman have talked recently. https://t.co/IDITqYjxXe— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 14, 2020
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Per the great @RonColeman -
Flynn Amicus John Gleeson's law firm represented Sally Yates and fought against her testifying before the House.
Gleeson's firm was present with Yates during her testimony. pic.twitter.com/5LLrIAxnM9— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 14, 2020
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously last week against the improper use of amicus briefs by judges to shape a court case as they wish — which is what Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is doing, critics say, in the ongoing Michael Flynn case." https://t.co/p5Z2jOCqMH via @BreitbartNews— Lisa Mei Crowley 🐸 (@LisaMei62) May 14, 2020
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for a unanimous Court, held:
In our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation … [O]ur system “is designed around the premise that [parties represented by competent counsel] know what is best for them, and are reponsible for advancing the facts and argument entitling them to relief.” Id., at 386 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
In short: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government.” United States v. Samuels, 808 F. 2d 1298, 1301 (CA8 1987) (Arnold, J., concurring in denial of reh’g en banc)). They “do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” Ibid.
When you loose Buzzy...you lost it Bigly