LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! Okay, he's breaking and ignoring established precedents. However, overturning a precedent from the SCOTUS is a horrible decision. Is that better, jackass? You can play word games all day but it doesn't change anything. This is DOA when it goes to the appellate courts.
He is not "overturning" a SCOTUS precedent. That's doesn't even make sense as a thing a district judge can do. I think you mean he is misapplying precedent; that happens relatively frequently, and sorting it out is the whole point of the appellate courts.
Anyway, Chenoweth really oversold the applicability of those cases; it is frankly, a complete lie that these are controlling cases for Sullivan's request for amicus briefing. He's a lawyer who should know better. What he seems to mean is that he thinks Sullivan should have looked at those cases and learned certain lessons about his role and therefore rubberstamp the dismissal.
U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith is about an appellate court injecting a new issue to a case that was never in dispute between the parties. The appellate court then actually adjudicated that invented issue. That's not what is happening here. The situations are, frankly, not that similar. There is a shared background principle re: judicial restraint, but that's about it.
Fokker (which is not SCOTUS, but still binding on Sullivan) is more relevant. It is a case about a judge denying a DPA under the Speedy Trial Act because other 3rd parties weren't being charged at all, thus completely usurping the charging power of the prosecution. It doesn't really address what to do when a case has already been adjudicated and the prosecution changes their mind. The case is still pretty interesting, and the discussion of Rule 48 in it helpful explains why it is extremely unlikely Sullivan ultimately does anything but dismiss the case.
Neither of them says anything about the "wrongness" of what Sullivan has done so far. He is literally just asking for briefing on a Rule 48 dismissal and its implications,
after conviction, which is perfectly within his discretion as judge. But Chenoweth sees a background principle in them he see Sullivan ignoring and doesn't like. Which, great, he's entitled to his opinion, but that's all it is. The histrionics about "breaking the law" are bizarre.
This is a pretty rare, possibly unique, situation so anyone acting like there is "obvious" precedent is just trying to deceive you. I also looked Chenoweth up and he is Mike Pompeo's former Chief of Staff who thinks the whole Administrative State is unconstitutional, so, actual lol at this guy giving an impartial take in the first place.
However, here is another take from a prosecutor. This author states "There is no complex legal issue to be resolved. DOJ’s dismissal motion may be politically controversial, but legally it is pro forma. The only branch of government constitutionally authorized to proceed with a criminal prosecution is the executive. The Justice Department has declined to prosecute. There is nothing for the judge to do besides the ministerial task of ending the case on the court’s records." If usurping power you don't have isn't breaking the law, what is it then?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...cus-briefs-against-the-flynn-cases-dismissal/
Judicial misconduct also occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or
otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct. He's definitely not showing impartial conduct.
I have to admit I was disappointed that "another prosecutor" turned out to be real-life conspiracy theorist Andrew McCarthy. I assume he also believes Sullivan is also part of an Obama plot to bring us under Sharia law. I refuse to believe you meant this as a serious suggestion.
The argument that asking for amici is "usurping power" and therefore "breaking the law" is laughable. The article itself notes that requests for just this thing have been made dozens of time in this case alone.
I am well aware of the actual way Rule 48 motions work. I would be surprised if Sullivan failed to ultimately dismiss the charges, unless else something unforeseen comes out. If he does somehow get there, it is certainly possible the DC Circuit would overturn him. But the idea that you have decided he's a lawbreaker because he asked for more briefing on a politically fraught case shows you are not looking at this rationally.
You are letting right-wing trolls at National Review etc. rile you up.
