LAWFAG here
POTUS cannot request an advisory opinion from SCOTUS - this is long settled law based on the constitution which grants SCOTUS the power to judge only "cases and controversies" not issue opinions upon request. The parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, the issue presented must be "mature for judicial resolution" or ripe and be a "justiciable issue" . MANY MANY cases are dismissed for lack of these requirements.
In addition the rule is grounded in the seperation of powers doctrine because POTUS can get all the legal advice he needs from the Executive Branch and it is a potential/actual conflict for the judicial branch to also weigh in with advice or opinions absent a justiciable controversy.
Early on President George Washington formally asked the Supreme Court for advice, and the Justices responded with a written opinion declining to help. This Justices' opinion is generally considered as the source of an absolute rule that federal courts may not render advisory opinions.
In a leading case, the Supreme Court explained that the "rule against advisory opinions was established as early as 1793…" Hast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83,96 n.14 (1968)
So one may ask how can Q post this:
SESSIONS CLAS LETTER TO SC JUSTICES 1&2 RE: RECUSAL, UNRECUSAL, AND CLARITY RE: CONFLICTS BASED ON UNCLASSIFIED MATERIAL [TODAY].
HIGHEST COURT AUTHORITY APPROVAL
That is a tough question to answer. It is possible there is or was actual litigation on the issue that has been kept secret. But that seems far fetched - who would be the party opposing the un-recusal of Sessions and why would that party be willing to keep such a secret? And would the courtds permit such a secret litigation?
So there is really no strictly legal method - I can only speculate and that is as follows - possibilities -1 - federal law on national emergency has been invoked and used to prsuade the justices to get involved - 2. the evidence presented to the justices (treason?) was so compelling they agreed to get invloved - 3- POTUS has some other leverage over the justices to force them to get involved.
However again nonoe of those seem likely or real - there is ONE logical explanation - that is the the connection to FISA courts - since those are secret courts and are supervised by SCOTUS it seems very reasonable (and therefore likely) that the answer lies in that arena - exactly what i have no idea but it would be "bootstrapped" onto that lgal structure and the "opinion" would not be advisory to POTUS/SESSIONS but to the FISA court and indirectly provide the guidance POTUS/SESSIONS wanted. just a theory though
Any way you look at it if this Q post is true (and I assume it is) this is a constitutional showdown of the first magnitude.
MAGA indeed…………….