Chief Justice Ginsberg just issued an order on exactly this topic.
In particular Ginisberg made clear that as the neutral party the judge cannot take an interest in or prosecuted case that the DOJ will not prosecute.
On May 7 2020 AJ Ginsburg writing for the court in a 9-0 decision in UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH reversing the 9th circus stated
Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the parties, however, the court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question never raised by Sineneng-Smith: Whether the statute is overbroad under the First Amendment. ....
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.” Id., at 243
Even more damning in this case is what Ginsburg wrote in the cited Greenlaw case where she said:
“[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)
So holdeth Ginsburg and her colleagues.
In this case, the United States has withdrawn from prosecution and sought to dismiss.
Judge Sullivan cannot continue a prosecution in place of the DOJ.
Thanks for that additional post ... Flynn’s attorney should just call it in and say it’s over
Can AJ Ginsberg’s Opinion be used to argue against the blatantly flawed John Robert’s ruling on Obamacare???
Wouldn’t THAT be sweeeeet ! ?
Study up on criminal contempt, especially Rule 42 criminal contempt. It is an odd duck. Judge is prosecutor.
Saw this last night. Somebody needs to inform Emmett about it, because he obviously missed that class.
WOW. That’s a great find. Did you research that yourself? If so I think you should write it up and submit to the Wall Street Journal as an op-ed.
You are exactly right. It is directly on point. In the Roman system which underlies European (and Church) law, the judge is an “inquisitor” whose job it is to actively find the truth regardless of whatever interest the parties to the case may have or whatever evidence they may want to present. That’s how Sullivan is acting and his two most recent decisions are quite literally un-American.
Hey Judge Sullivan and dims....when you loose Buzzy you loose bigly.
The thing is, judges are not neutral. At least not since I have been reading the news. (Call it forty plus years.)