Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (715501)	5/20/2020 12:52:03 PM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794189

In your estimation what is motivating Sullivan’s actions ?

To: carranza2 who wrote (715501)	5/20/2020 1:22:41 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794189

The real question regarding the mandamus proceeding in my estimation is one that highlights the absurdity of it all. That question is this one: who will defend Sullivan’s actions in the Court of Appeals? The DOJ won’t, the judge is not a party, and both parties agree that a dismissal is in order. I expect some amicus briefing, perhaps, because amicus briefs are permissible in criminal cases in the Court of Appeals. So, only amici at the Court of Appeals defending Sullivan? That’s very unusual, but it’s discretionary. This twist IMO highlights how ludicrous this case has become. My question also. Powell's Petition addresses the amici question. Petition, pp 11-17. "Neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the district court's local rules authorize amicus participation in criminal cases. This is in sharp contrast to the district court rule governing civil cases, which does authorize the filing of amicus briefs. LCvR 7(o). . . . [T]he express mention of amicus briefs on the civil side must be understood to exclude them on the criminal side." She notes that prior to the issuance of the May 12, 2020, order, "the district judge adhered scrupulously to thee district court's rules, denying some two dozen attempts by third parties to intervene or file amicus briefs in this very case. She refers to the Court's December 20, 2017, Minute Order denying a motion to file amicus briefing.. Overall, notwithstanding some of the hyperbole in the Petition (which may go over better in a state court setting), I think she's got a winner here. If not in the Court of Appeals, then in the Supreme Court. The DC Circuit, however, is getting increasingly conservative. I think she'll win it here.