And so it is that a group of former Watergate special prosecutors this week resurrected the Ghost of Watergate Past in a last-ditch effort to keep alive the federal court case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The gang, adopting the sobriquet “Watergate Prosecutors,” asked permission from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to allow them to intervene in the Flynn case so they can – to put it bluntly – tell his honor how to think and what to do.
The judge issued an order Tuesday indicating he will soon accept “amicus curiae” (“friend of the court”) submissions in the case.
But in trial court proceedings involving crimes, only prosecutors and defense attorneys are permitted to be heard. Judges are supposed to render decisions based on evidence and arguments presented by the parties involved, not outside interests.
The SCOTUS unanimously overturned a 9th circuit decision BECAUSE OF THIS VERY THING,
The Ninth Circuit didn’t just buy this when they heard her appeal, they actively sought out three amici — “friends of the court” outside parties, usually experts, who give opinions on the matter at hand — to address questions regarding the overbreadth doctrine, which holds that there can be no law which allows for an overbroad restriction on free speech.
Keep in mind, this wasn’t Sineneng-Smith’s side requesting this. This was all the Ninth Circuit.
They struck down her conviction, finding — and you’ll never believe this — that the law violated the overbreadth doctrine.
Thursday’s 9-0 ruling reversed that decision because the Ninth Circuit invited opinions that weren’t included in the original arguments by the parties in the case.
Instead, the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that “the appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion
https://www.westernjournal.com/even-rbg-smacked-judicial-activism-unanimous-scotus-decision/
The Nation’s adversarial adjudication system follows the principle of party presentation. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237, 243. “In both civil and criminal cases, . . . we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.”
...“[o]ur adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.” (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As cogently explained:
“[Courts] do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. We wait for cases to come to us, and when they do we normally decide only questions presented by the parties.Counsel almost always know a great deal more about their cases than we do, and this must be particularly true of counsel for the United States, the richest, most powerful, and best represented litigant to appear before us.
And Ginsburg continues in Greenlaw: This Court has recognized that “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 693 (1974)
“The SCOTUS unanimously overturned a 9th circuit decision BECAUSE OF THIS VERY THING,”
Perhaps Judge Sullivan is aware of this ruling and has decided to poison the well with this action and kick this over to a higher court to resolve.