103 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
75 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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!

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
166 points

will no one rid us of these meddlesome corrupt judges…

permalink
report
reply
13 points

Where’s my pitchfork?

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

We can fix that

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

Just don’t use the same gunman. We don’t need anymore ears on this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

All my Diablo 2 training down the drain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I mean they sniped the kid almost immediately. Kind of macabre to say, but he’s not getting another chance…

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

If you’ve read French history … you don’t want to be the person calling for the guillotine.

The loudest proponents of the guillotine to deal with social problems were usually guillotine’d in the end.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Removed, advocating violence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Some of those second amendment people

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Man, season 3 of Goliath shows how judges are influenced by billionaires and is explained nicely about the 99% owning and controlling the law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

This country is a fucking joke, I hate it.

permalink
report
reply
11 points
*

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?

permalink
report
reply
17 points

If we had a competent unbiased judicial system he’d be in jail for this already.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Are you talking about Guantanamo? While it’d be ironic for a white right-wing facist to be sent there, I wouldn’t consider it “justice”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

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.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 437K

    Comments