This is getting absurd.
Sean Davis
@seanmdav
The judge in Flynn’s case just appointed a retired judge appointed by Bill Clinton to argue *against* dismissing the corrupt case against Flynn. Note that the motion to dismiss the case is unopposed by all parties to the case.
Emmet G. Sullivan is as corrupt as Comey’s FBI.
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1260707994184167424
This is getting absurd.
It would be if it wasn’t so dangerous. These a-holes almost got away with their corruption.
Getting?
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/