Debate Info

Screw the Constitution Who needs a prosecutor?
Debate Score:11
Total Votes:12
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Screw the Constitution (3)
 Who needs a prosecutor? (4)

Debate Creator

NigerInnis(56) pic

Why would a judge hire attorneys to defend him prosecuting a case with no prosecutor

Federal judge in Michael Flynn case hires high-powered attorney to defend his decisions

Screw the Constitution

Side Score: 6

Who needs a prosecutor?

Side Score: 5
No arguments found. Add one!
1 point

Why would a judge hire attorneys to defend him

Hello N:

First off, your question reeks of ignorance.. So, the clear answer is, learn yourself some law, then come back and see me..


Side: Who needs a prosecutor?
2 points

then come back and see me.

Hello again, N:

Ok, I'm not gonna wait cause there's plenty of people out there who are as misinformed as you are.. So, I thought I'd provide a public service.

Let's break it down. First off, in legal matters, words COUNT.. Jude Sullivan didn't HIRE Judge Gleeson. He appointed him.. Those aren't the same things, like hamburger ISN'T filet mignon. Judge Sullivan didn't MAKE a decision in the case yet, so there's NOTHING to defend. Finally, you don't NEED a prosecutor once you get a conviction, and a guilty plea IS a conviction..

Any questions?


Side: Who needs a prosecutor?
HootiesWank(94) Disputed
2 points

Judge Sullivan didn't MAKE a decision in the case.

Yes he did. He rejected the DOJ, who is the prosecutor in the case, dropping the case. In all other cases of this type, he and all other judges, dropped the case because there is no prosecutor prosecuting the case, and it's career suicide to ignore the upper courts and the Supreme Court as a judge.

So there's nothing to defend

He attempted to override a Supreme Court ruling that was a 9-0 ruling per Ruth Ginsberg ironically, and the court above him gave him a time limit to explain what in the hell he was doing.

Side: Screw the Constitution
HootiesWank(94) Disputed
1 point

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan disregarded two controlling precedents from higher courts with his decision to appoint John Gleeson as amicus curiae in the U.S. v. Michael Flynn case this week. Judicial conduct similar to J. Sullivan’s in these prior, far less politically charged cases was roundly and unanimously condemned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, and their colleagues across the ideological spectrum.

So, whether or not one agrees with the Department of Justice’s call to drop its charges against President Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn, there should be widespread agreement that J. Sullivan has veered way out of line.

One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” 05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/amp/

Side: Screw the Constitution

To ensure that prosecutorial decisions aren't arbitrary, capricious, or corrupt.

Side: Who needs a prosecutor?