Article

2020-05-22 Home Front: Politix

Appeals court orders judge Emmett Sullivan in Flynn case to explain actions

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by DarthVader 2020-05-22 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 Somebody should the the Appeals Court about the 1,100 former prosecutors who think Flynn should be fried! Or maybe that'll be Sullivan's defense.

Posted by Bobby 2020-05-21 17:18|| 2020-05-21 17:18|| Front Page Top

#2 Rolled over

Posted by Frank G 2020-05-21 17:29|| 2020-05-21 17:29|| Front Page Top

#3 If an appeals court is ordering a judge to explain his actions, they are really fucking serious about this.

It's, IMO, a case of "We have to keep up the pretenses".

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2020-05-22 05:33|| 2020-05-22 05:33|| Front Page Top

#4 ...yes. For the last hundreds years the judiciary as granted itself powers and purview that is not in the Constitution or granted by the legislative branch. It's all pretense. Or an awareness that if he can do it, then all those Trump 'young' appointed judges can play the same game for a long time to whomever follows.

Posted by Procopius2k 2020-05-22 07:05|| 2020-05-22 07:05|| Front Page Top

#5 ^The moment Dems are back in power, all these Trump appointed judges go Flynn route.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2020-05-22 08:49|| 2020-05-22 08:49|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, the explanation might be interesting.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2020-05-22 12:35|| 2020-05-22 12:35|| Front Page Top

#7 Well, the explanation might be interesting.

"I, uh, well, ya know, erm... ... ... Mommy..."

Posted by M. Murcek 2020-05-22 15:07|| 2020-05-22 15:07|| Front Page Top

#8 Sullivan doesn't have a legal rationale for his extral-judicial actions. If things go as they should, he will get a legal slap-down in his future.

Posted by JohnQC 2020-05-22 17:33|| 2020-05-22 17:33|| Front Page Top

#9 Sullivan knows better, a person has to wonder why he did this.

Posted by JohnQC 2020-05-22 17:36|| 2020-05-22 17:36|| Front Page Top

#10 As a Twitter thread from an appellate court laywer found by John Sexton explains: Yes, it's a huge deal.

Most of the thread is below, but here are the main points:

1. The appellate court could have just dismissed this motion out of hand, which they do most of the time. (As I noted, when you're dealing with a jailhouse lawyer's frivolous filings, it's only a matter of time before he cries prejudice and demands a new judge.)

They did not do this, obviously. They're taking this seriously. That fact means that this motion has already cleared a "huge hurdle" -- the appellate court accepts that this is serious matter requring their attention and not just a desperate last-chance gamble.

2. They could have politely "invited" Sullivan to file a reply with the court. Which is friendly and collegial.

They did not. They "ordered" him to. Which is unfreindly and reminds Sullivan who the ranking officers are here.

3. They could have asked an amicus -- a friend of the court; a respected lawyer or judge or legal commentator -- to file a reply on Sullivan's behalf and thereby spare him the indignity of having to, effectively, defend himself and act as his own lawyer.

They did not do that. They insisted that Sullivan himself reply.

This all seems like good news.

The three judges on this panel were appointed by Reagan, Obama, and Trump.

From Ace of Spades

Posted by DarthVader 2020-05-22 21:17|| 2020-05-22 21:17|| Front Page Top

22:38 Whiskey Mike
22:37 Whiskey Mike
22:27 trailing wife
22:19 rjschwarz
22:01 swksvolFF
21:58 USN, Ret.
21:32 Clem
21:26 Lex
21:25 Jan
21:23 Lex
21:22 Lex
21:21 Lex
21:17 DarthVader
21:04 Clem
21:02 Clem
20:46 M. Murcek
20:45 M. Murcek
20:37 Skidmark
20:36 Skidmark
20:34 Skidmark
20:32 Skidmark
20:20 M. Murcek
20:13 KBK
20:11 M. Murcek