[Rockingham]

The facts of the Flynn case provide poor material, but, in the abstract, the larger legal issue may not be so clear cut. It is easy enough to imagine a case in which a conviction after a plea bargain is undone with tangible harm to the interests of the public or a crime victim. A well-drawn en banc motion would explore such possibilities and urge that the Court of Appeal opinion should be redrawn to more clearly allow a trial judge to hold a substantive hearing in the proper case.

In addition, with seven judges on the DC Circuit appointed by Democrats to four appointed by Republicans, there is always the chance that an en banc partisan lineup may come to the rescue of Judge Sullivan. Indeed, to a greater degree than is commonly realized -- even by lawyers -- judges these days tend to have an avid interest in politics and make it a frequent subject of discussion among them. The exceptions tend to be conservatives with a strict moral view of their judicial role.

Finally, as in baseball, by watching the players one can learn a lot as to what is going on in the game. Flynn and his lawyer have been circumspect in their comments about the case. Even in winning an important victory, they are not acting like they have won the game yet.

[lepton]

Well, we saw a *big* move to partisanship in judges with the Clintons. Clinton-appointed judges began having regular Clinton-appointee-only meetings to discuss cases and to assign ‘sensitive’ cases amongst themselves, leaving out even other Democrat-appointed judges.

That goes even beyond the expected leanings that would result in a judicial candidate being appointed by a President with activist views.