Supreme Court Ruled Unanimously Last Week Against Improper Use of Amicus Briefs; Relevant for Flynn Case – IOTW Report

Supreme Court Ruled Unanimously Last Week Against Improper Use of Amicus Briefs; Relevant for Flynn Case

Breitbart: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously last week against the improper use of amicus briefs by judges to shape a court case as they wish — which is what Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is doing, critics say, in the ongoing Michael Flynn case.

On Tuesday, Judge Sullivan announced that he would accept amicus briefs about whether he should grant the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion to dismiss the case against Flynn. On Wednesday, Sullivan went a step further, appointing retired judge John Gleeson as amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) to argue against dismissal, and to argue Flynn be held in criminal contempt.

(Gleeson had already expressed his views in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday, attacking the DOJ’s motion.)

But last week, in the case of U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, the Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit acted improperly by appointing three amici and directing them to brief issues that the judges wanted to consider — but the litigants had not raised. read more

20 Comments on Supreme Court Ruled Unanimously Last Week Against Improper Use of Amicus Briefs; Relevant for Flynn Case

  1. Judge Sullivan is simply a “Uncle Tom” to his democrat slave owners.
    They have him doing the dirty work on their plantation.

    WALK AWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TODAY!

    26
  2. While living in this alternative Universe, Prepare heart and mind.
    When called to retreat surge forward regain all the continental USA. Our geography is our greatest security besides the free American man and his woman.

    12
  3. I have never read about or seen, after the election of a new president, so many people eager to be nationally publicly recognized as a__holes. This judge is just the latest one to join the AH Parade.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/judge_sullivan_should_be_recused_from_the_general_flynn_case.html .

    “Judge Emmet Sullivan, the federal judge on the General Flynn case, should recuse himself because he is not an impartial judge.

    During a hearing in December 2018, Sullivan asked the prosecutor if General Flynn could be charged with treason.

    This shows an appalling lack of consideration for the meaning of treason, which is the only crime defined by the Constitution:…..

    Sullivan should read United States v. Sineneng-Smith, where Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion to reverse the 9th Circuit that allowed an amicus curiae to raise an issue on behalf of the defendant, even though the defendant had competent counsel.

    Note that this was an outsider helping the defendant, not the prosecution.

    Justice Ginsburg stated:

    In our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation. As this Court stated in Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237 (2008), “in both civil and criminal cases, in the first instance and on appeal …, 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.” … In criminal cases, departures from the party presentation principle have usually occurred “to protect a pro se litigant’s rights.

    Sullivan did not ask amici curiae to help General Flynn. Maybe he should have when Flynn was forced to plead guilty before he hired the brilliant, hardworking attorney Sidney Powell to represent him to withdraw the plea…”

    13
  4. So, if the Central Park 5 jogger rape defendants withdrew their videotaped confessions, Sullivan would charge them with perjury?

    He’s just Eric Holder in a nightgown.

    Impeach Sullivan by any means necessary.

    21
  5. Affirmative action on display.

    Sullivan needed to bring in a white lawyer named Gleeson to help him make a decision. Apparently Sullivan lacks the intellectual horsepower to make the decision himself.

    5
  6. So the Federal Judge in the General Flynn case, refuses to abide by the unanimous SCOTUS ruling last week against amicus briefs? Plus he seems to have forgotten as a Judge he is to be impartial, not a party to the case.

    Given his already obvious and openly BIAS attitude/agenda in this case shouldn’t he be brought up on ethics charges and removed from the bench?

    2

Comments are closed.