A number of commenters have asked what the significance of this move is. I cautioned against reading much into it. Shipwrecked crew offers an explanation that makes sense in light of what has been going on. What I mean is this. The failure of the DC Circuit to take up the matter of an en banc rehearing on its own initiative (sua sponte) certainly appears to be an indication of a lack of interest. Why, then, this "direction" and "invitation" for responses? Per shipwreckedcrew:
I believe this action only took the request of a single judge to trigger the requirement of getting a response. It builds in at least 2 more weeks of delay.
In other words, if, say, Wilkins--the dissenter on the three judge panel--requested responses, despite the lack of interest from the rest of the Circuit, then the responses have to be filed. And there's a two week delay. At least. But that tells us nothing about the attitude of the Circuit as a whole. We can speculate all we want, but in the final analysis all we can do is wait.
An appeals court stayed a decision ordering a judge to accept the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss its criminal case against retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.ReplyDelete
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an order on Friday that gives the former Trump national security adviser and the DOJ 10 days to respond to Judge Emmet Sullivan's Thursday petition for a rehearing by the full appeals court.
The filing further stated that the three-judge panel's June 24 decision ordering Sullivan to grant the DOJ's motion to drop the criminal charges against Flynn has been stayed "pending disposition of the petition for rehearing en banc.”
The two factions seem to be facing off - but not squarely. On one side is Sullivan trying to somehow leverage or convince the Appeals Court to overrule the three judge panel; all after the Justice Department withdraws its case against Flynn. On the other side is the DOJ which continues to release FBI notes after the three judge appellate decision that say Flynn was forthright in his answers when interviewed, leaving unsaid the unsavory (and likely illegal) tactics employed by Strzok and Peintka to keep the Flynn case open...ReplyDelete
With the hint that there could be more to come if the Court of Appeals goes down the wrong path. More egg on their faces.Delete
Sullivan just dragging things out hoping for some bombshell revelation that will justify his way of thinking and justify his actions. This needs to end.ReplyDelete
On the other hand I can picture Judge Wilkins making many phone calls asking "Who's with me on en banc" to his peers.ReplyDelete
When this is all over and resolved, what happens to Judge Sullivan? Does he get spanked publicly or privately? Goes away quietly in the night? Reprimand/censure and continues in his current role? Any thoughts on this Mark?ReplyDelete
Awards and honors.Delete
Reputation is the wrong filter here. Think: resistance. And everyone has a role to play.
have judges always been allowed to appeal with an attorney when a higher court overules them?ReplyDelete
It's unusual but, I believe, allowed.Delete
That, I believe, is what the Dems are desperately trying to prevent.Delete
I did not realize Judge Sullivan was so involved in lawfare...ReplyDelete
<a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/judge_sullivans_appeal_for_en_banc_hearing_has_good_chance_at_success.html ”>Judge Sullivan's Appeal for 'En Banc' Hearing Has Good Chance at Success </a>
No, I missed that, too. It seems clear, as the article suggests, that they're currently desperate to keep Flynn off the Trump campaign.Delete