HarryStotle:
Should that stop him from registering his dissent on a ruling? Judges are entirely free, procedurally speaking, to register dissent at the time rulings are written. Thomas did, and continues to voice that same dissent because he made a strong Constitutional case. He isn’t claiming that he himself will reopen R v W because the procedures allow it.
Thomas did not dissent from the holding on the current case. Judges can always say what they want. In this case, what Thomas said really means nothing. He was just running off at the pen.
If I had claimed something about Thomas taking action that upends the procedures of the court you might have a point but I didn’t do so. Therefore, your point is disconnected from anything I wrote.
I think you missed the point. Nothing Thomas wrote mattered.
Perhaps you can now opine - consistent with your post - on Judge Emmett Sullivan’s completely rogue pursuit of Michael Flynn’s case despite that the DOJ dropped its prosecution of him? How does a judge taking to himself the role of judge and chief prosecutor sit with your “procedural problems” position?
the judges stance actually troubled me until you consider that the judge had a miscreant in front of him who pled guilty. Why is the prosecution backing off now? I guess a judge can examine the reasons. It seems that somewhere along the way, either the prosecution or the defense was not entirely truthful.
But this matter is a deflection and off the point.
Sullivan is going out of his way to “select which cases come his way” by refusing to drop a case where the DOJ itself admits huge issues with the way that case was constructed.
No, the case was before him – he did not choose it.
