Without a doubt he is. Let the rehearing get underway, promptly, says Condor. Here's the petition for a rehearing, and a bit:
. . . .Mr. Flynn sought mandamus and the government chose not to. The panel identified no irremediable harm to Mr. Flynn and cited no precedent supporting its consideration only of harm to the government. See Op. 17. This Court’s opinion in Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2003), is inapposite because it merely observed that the government need not file a “separate petition for mandamus” on top of its interlocutory appeal. Id. at 1140 n.*. This case is fundamentally different because the only party that sought immediate review was Mr. Flynn. Likewise, Ex parte Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (1943), does not support the panel’s exclusive focus on the government because the Supreme Court expressly considered harms to Peru, the party that actually sought mandamus. . . .
Each of these departures from precedent threatens to expand mandamus beyond its properly circumscribed role, and to invite the use of mandamus as forum shopping, where parties ask this Court to decide issues in the first instance. The full Court’s review is necessary. . . .
This will get sorted out. And with Michael Cohen back in jail tonight, and Roger Stone set to surrender to prison on Monday -- I will focus on the justice being meted out, bit by bit here. And. . . I will smile, tonight.
2 comments:
No, this judge is not right on the law. His original "brief" was actually quite embarrassingly amateurish. I haven't punished myself with reading the sequel but if your excerpt is representative of the content, its just as laughably wrong. Just so you know, because it seems to have escaped your erudite analysis, but the DOJ is a respondent in this matter.
Well, hello from up there in Oregon — it’s been a long while since last you commented. . . .
But you do visit nearly every other day, for years now. . . So let me repay your investment of time and attention by politely asking for specifics: is it your view that federal judges have no right to ask questions of the DoJ, In felony matters — when DoJ drops an already-entered guilty plea at sentencing?
Has the judge (in your view of Constitutional law) no role in making sure that the public’s interest in actual justice is being faithfully served, and not just the sitting President’s interest, in continuing to obstruct justice, with a deal?
Add to all of this that all Judge Sullivan has done so far is ask the DoJ to explain itself, in view of the dank appearances surrounding this move. . . he has NOT yet ruled on whether he will allow the guilty plea to be withdrawn, at all.
Is it your view (in sum) that the judicial beach may not ask questions of the executive branch?
If so, I would note that the Supremes just last week (all nine of them), in Vance, told Trump there is no such thing as absolute immunity — just as they reaffirmed Marshall’s role, during Burr’s trial, that established the role of the judiciary as a reviewer of executive excesses (so too with Flynn, here recently).
I await your learned and considered responses.
/s/ I remain your most humble and obedient servant,
— the Condor
Post a Comment