will no one rid us of these meddlesome corrupt judges....
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
269 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19094 readers
4109 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Where's my pitchfork?
Some of those second amendment people
We can fix that
Just don’t use the same gunman. We don’t need anymore ears on this.
All my Diablo 2 training down the drain.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
And he's so obviously right, this is incredible.
She did buy President Drink Bleach time though, and that's good for their fascist cause. But there's also a part of me thinking she could have dragged this out much longer. Maybe I'm wrong though.
The smarter people seem to be saying it's a mixed bag. She could have dragged the case out for more months, maybe even years. Or she could have seated a jury and done a different kind of dismissal thing that isn't appealable.
This path let's Jack Smith appeal to the 11th circuit (I think) immediately and they're the ones who rebutted her pretty soundly the last time she ruled on a Trump case. We can probably expect a reasonable ruling from them.
However, here's the rub. After 11th circuit or whatever has their say Trump can appeal to the Supreme Court. In their recent Presidential Immunity ruling there was a long response by Clarence Thomas that included a section questioning the legality of Jack Smith's appointment. Which is the same reasoning Cannon gives in her ruling. It's pretty clear that Thomas was signalling that he would rule in favor of Trump for that same reason if/when an appeal got to him.
It's not clear whether the rest of the conservatives on the court agree with Thomas but it all suggests this will go to the Supreme Court and at least one member has already signalled how they would rule. For the time being, Trump continues to prove that he is, in fact, above the law.
In their recent Presidential Immunity ruling there was a long response by Clarence Thomas that included a section questioning the legality of Jack Smith's appointment. Which is the same reasoning Cannon gives in her ruling.
The dissenting opinion in their recent Chevron Deference ruling criticises Thomas and others for using this tactics repeatedly to overturn laws they don't like. They write opinions about one thing but include a bunch of questions about something only tangentially related. Then they'll suddenly take up a case that seems to centre exactly around that question they had. A case that was only filed after the initial ruling.
Cannon using Thomas' words is no mistake. It's the way these judges have been legislating from the bench.
Wait wait wait are you saying that Republicans crying about "activist judges ruling from the bench" for the last 20 years was just more projection!?
Say it ain't so! Republicans projecting their intent? Never!
The Federalist Society identified 40 years ago what they considered to be the problem, liberal activist judges.
They have spent the last four decades working their way into the judicial system and nomination process to achieve the current Supreme Court balance for their ultimate objective, conservative activist judges.
I feel like the only way this dismissal makes sense is if there have been back room conversations between Cannon and SCOTUS indicating that there is a majority to overturn any 11th circuit ruling. Cannon wouldn't have dismissed unless the outcome was in some way guaranteed because the outcome of seating a jury, then dismissing was absolutely guaranteed.
They are both Federalist Society puppets. It likely wasn’t even a back room deal, they probably all went out to dinner and laughed about doing this corrupt shit out in the open.
Yeah I’m sure she could have dragged it out even more if she really wanted to, but according a whole slew of current and former prosecutors, the motions she was putting off were things she should have decided on the spot. And any experienced judge not purposefully delaying things would have had no trouble ruling on those things from the bench. Instead, she sat on motions for months, chose to set ridiculous deadlines and hold separate hearing on issues that had already been decided elsewhere. She even accepted amicus briefs and had mini oral arguments for issues that she had no business ruling on (the legality of Smith’s appointment being one of them). Those types of hearings are super rare in a lower court and a case like this.
She’s wildly inexperienced and obviously corrupt, which is a pretty dangerous combination.
Lets hope this will lead to a real judge to preside over the case, and not just a Trump Minion.
Clarence Thomas has entered the chat...
They said real judge, not sock puppet.
He is a real judge and thats the terrifying part.
Clarence thinks he's a Real Judge tho. If you ask him, he'll tell you.
You can always ID a sock puppet... they have somebody elses hand up their ass.
Fear not citizen! The judiciary has randomly selected:
AILEEN. CANNON.
To preside over this case. Rest assured all efforts were made to ensure a fair and speedy trial!
Not to familiar with the Supreme Court I see. I have some bad news...
That, unfortunately, it will not. She hasn't come out and actually stated her bias, which is about what you need to do.
She made a ruling that upended decades of precedent concerning the constitutionality of special council appointments.
She may work for Conservatives, but she ain't SCOTUS, and she doesn't have the same ability to rewrite the law based on specious reasoning. Plus, she's already been reprimanded and reversed by the 11th Circuit twice for questionable rulings.
She doesn't need to communicate bias, she just needs to make it clear that she's unfit to adjudicate this case, which is pretty obvious at this point. If Jack Smith can prove any bias, it will just be icing on the cake.
This country is a fucking joke, I hate it.
Remember when the Republicans were all about removing "activist judges"? Good times...
Every accusation is an admission
"Activist judges" for me, none for thee.
If special council wins the appeal and Cannon stays on as judge that would be awkward. Of course it'll go to the Supreme Court and by then the election will be over. If Trump wins the election and he knows he'll be facing prosecution he'll be desperate. We've seen what he'll do to try and save face, if he's looking at jail time I'm worried what he'll do. You know this time he'll surround himself with loyalists
If he wins the election the case goes away
I guess you are right about that. The charges in Georgia will still stand though
Except all of his damning phone calls can be construed as official acts and thus tossed.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'm honestly surprised that she dismissed at this stage. If she could have dragged the case to the point where they had selected a jury, then dismissed for some reason, there would have been no right to an appeal. I do understand that Clarence Thomas essentially suggested that Cannon should take this route in one of his concurrences, but it seems like the wrong strategy when there was a possibility to dismiss without the possibility of appeal.
I don't mean that I wish she had dismissed later. I just mean that I'm surprised because I thought their strategy was going to be different with this case.
What you have to understand is Thomas is really stupid. He is peak Dunning-Kruger, and possibly the stupidest person to ever serve on SCOTUS. He has no idea what he is doing and almost no understanding of the law.
She's auditioning for the next opening on the supreme court.
load more comments
(1 replies)
What's a realistic timeline?
ETA- i realize the real answer is never, but if we had a competent, unbiased judicial system, what would it look like?
If we had a competent unbiased judicial system he'd be in jail for this already.
The fun part is that when the defendant is not rich, our judicial system is very efficient. Numerous people have been thrown in jail over the exact thing Trump did in this case.
If we had a real justice system, we never would have heard of what happened. Trump would have “retired” somewhere nice and warm and no one would hear from him again, like Cuba or the Chagos Islands.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Would expect no less
Too little too late. This should have been expedited from day 1. Good luck getting any resemblance of justice between now and November. After that nothing matters anymore because fascists will be in power, thanks to your slow dance.
And when it goes through--which it will, since the appeals court has already told Cannon to cut her shit out--move to have her removed from the case. The downsides of delaying or having a pissed off judge don't matter anymore.
view more: next ›