http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIaabsZ9H-8
The Flynn case ends with a 43 page graceless rant by Inspector Javert Judge Sullivan, upset that the pardon ends his bizarre attempt to be both Judge and Prosecutor. That this farce was allowed to go on so long demonstrates the amount of corruption in our judicial system.
If the Republic survives its current tribulation, (and Don, you are more optimistic about that than I am), I predict that Sullivan’s rant will take its place among the pantheon of cringeworthy and comedic examples of judicial logorrhea that are passed around by lawyers and law students everywhere. Not the sort of notoriety His “Honor” likely prefers.
One of the worst cases of Black Robitis I have ever seen Frank!
A political hack whose primary motivation is the defendant’s political views which should be irrelevant. His ignorance, or bias, is illustrated by his assertion that the outcome does not mean Flynn is innocent. In the history of Anglo-American jurisprudence, there has never been a procedure for a finding of innocence, only for a finding of lack of evidence to find guilt. Two different things. A federal judge who does not know the difference should be impeached. I won’t hold my breath.
From what I’ve seen and read the judge appears to have largely ignored the prosecutorial abuse from the withholding of exculpatory evidence, and the duress placed on Flynn to secure a guilty plea. His behavior in this case suggests that he approved of this abuse, and wanted to get his piece of the action.
Sullivan’s rant is why the Senior judge thing needs to end yesterday. You hit a certain age, and your done, because even if you still have your wits about you, it’s statistically improbably that the majority of your fellows have theirs about them.
I’m against lifetime appointments. That doesn’t mean I’m not amenable to a career-length appointment (say 20 to 25 years).
On the other hand, if these people (read scorn into the italics) are going to act like partisan hack politicians, the people should have the opportunity to vote their partisan hack backsides out of office. So maybe we need to make the use of retention elections (“shall so and so continue in office?”)
We wouldn’t need to pack (or unpack, as the case may be) the Supreme Court if we had a rule like every justice appointed by any President is subject to a retention election 12 years after the President who appointed him/her has left office (plus however many years you served during the term of the President that appointed you. e.g. EBC would face a retention election in 2032, Kavanaugh in 2034. Would to God that John Roberts faced a retention election in 2022 (Bush left office in January 2009, election, twelve years get you to 2019 plus the 3 years he was on the court beforeBbush left office gets you to 2022, which is when the next election year is.)
Thinking out loud. The scheme is probably too complicated.
Maybe we should take a lesson from the Athenians and go back to ostracism? Perhaps decimation. Pick 43 Representatives and 10 Senators at random and have them beaten to death.