On Wednesday, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn emerged victorious in the fight over whether to grant his writ of mandamus filed in the D.C. Circuit. This comes after U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan refused to dismiss Flynn’s case, despite the Department of Justice informing the court that it was no longer pursuing charges against him. Judge Sullivan appointed John Gleeson as amicus curiae to argue for his ability to decide whether the charges should be dropped. In an opinion authored by Judge Neomi Rao the D.C. Circuit admonished Judge Sullivan’s decision to appoint Gleeson and ordered the lower court to dismiss the charges against Flynn.

On Friday morning, oral arguments were heard before the D.C. Circuit concerning former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s appeal on a writ of mandumus  to District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan’s decision to decline to drop the charges against Flynn despite the Department of Justice’s request after an internal investigation. During the arguments, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson called Judge Emmet Sullivan’s attorney, John Gleeson, an “intemperate amicus.”  As Jonathan Turley describes Gleeson:

Now Gleeson has filed a brief that confirms the worst fears that many of us had about his appointment.  Gleeson assails what he called  “a trumped-up accusation of government misconduct.” The ultimate position advocated in Gleeson’s arguments would be a nightmare for criminal defendants, criminal defense counsel and civil libertarians.  Indeed, as discussed below, Gleeson was previously reversed as a judge for usurping the authority of prosecutors.

Gleeson actually makes the Red Queen in “Alice in Wonderland” look like an ACLU lawyer. After all she just called for “Sentence First–Verdict Afterward”  Gleeson is dispensing with any need for verdict on perjury, just the sentence. However, since these arguments are viewed as inimical to the Trump Administration, many seem blind to the chilling implications. . . .

[A]ccording to Gleeson, the Court should first sentence a defendant on a crime that the prosecutors no longer believe occurred in a case that prosecutors believe (and many of us have argued) was marred by the own misconduct.  He would then punish the defendant further by treating his support for dismissal and claims of coercion as perjury.  That according to former judge Gleeson is a return to “regularity.”  I have been a criminal defense attorney for decades and I have never even heard of anything like that. It is not “regular.” It is ridiculous.

Apparently both the left and the right are outraged at aspects of Judge Sullivan's decision to delay granting the Department of Justice’s motion to drop the case against Michael Flynn.  But while one side respects the separation of powers and the rule of law, the other side is acting like a schoolyard bully making threats.

To our minds, Judge Sullivan blurs separation of powers when he appointed a retired judge who publicly expressed opinions against Flynn to review the case and accept amicus curiae briefs.  Judge Sullivan seems to be acting like a prosecutor, not an “umpire” judge.  While we consider Judge Sullivan’s decision extremely troubling, we think Flynn’s lawyers took the appropriate course of action in this case by requesting a writ of mandamus. 

While it is not a story you will hear in the mainstream media on International Women's Day today, President Trump has nominated many excellent women to serve on the federal bench.  Liberals and most "feminists" do not recognize or praise these strong, capable women lawyers because they do not ascribe to the liberal dogma.  Here are profiles of a few of them.

This past week in the Senate could be best summarized as "justice week." Last Wednesday and again today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings for judicial nominees announced late last year, including the contentious hearing for Neomi Rao to fill Justice Kavanaugh's seat on the DC Circuit. Last Thursday, the Committee sent more than 40 judicial nominees to the Senate floor for a final confirmation vote, many of whom were holdovers from the last session of Congress thanks largely to Democrat obstruction tactics "to make the confirmation process as cumbersome as possible." And finally tomorrow, the full Senate is expected to have the final confirmation vote for Bill Barr as the next US Attorney General, after invoking cloture yesterday.

On Monday, the Walter Olson of the Cato Institute wrote about President Trump and his administration's efforts to remake the federal courts in the New York Post. He explains that every modern president has worked to leave a lasting impression on the courts through his choice of nominees, but President Trump has been doing great work at chipping away at a liberal judiciary.

The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Neomi Rao on Tuesday showed yet again that though Democrats claim to be the party that champions women and minorities, they really only care about championing those who agree with their increasingly radical policy views.  Instead of celebrating the impressive career and achievements of a minority woman, the daughter of immigrants, the Senate Judiciary Democrats attacked her and tried to mischaracterize her views.  As Ashley Baker explained in Fox News today, Rao is a threat to the Democrats precisely because she is a minority woman who does not have progressive views:

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a confirmation hearing for current Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator and Scalia Law Professor Neomi Rao's nomination to the D.C. Circuit.  RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen described in the Daily Caller how Senate Judiciary Democrats attempted to trip her up and ended up only looking foolish themselves: