215

"The issue, now before Cannon in the Southern District of Florida federal court, is likely to remain in the political debate at least until Cannon holds a hearing on the legal power of the special counsel to prosecute a defendant, on June 21."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mpa92643@lemmy.world 63 points 3 months ago

The role of a district court judge is to do two things:

  1. Apply existing precedent to individual cases to the greatest extent possible.
  2. Set new precedent only when absolutely necessary because the facts of the case don't align well to existing precedent.

Cannon has basically decided to do the exact opposite of these two rules by pretending that the facts of this case are so incredibly unprecedented that she has to throw out the rulebook and set new precedents on everything.

Literally the only unusual thing about this case is that the defendant, a private citizen who currently gets free government security protection for the rest of his life, used to be a president. That's it. Everything else about this case is straightforward obstruction of justice and willful retention of national security information.

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 43 points 3 months ago

Literally the only unusual thing about this case is that the defendant, a private citizen who currently gets free government security protection for the rest of his life, used to be a president. That’s it.

That, and he got to appoint his own judge. And he's got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up. And he's got all sorts of national security secrets, but is still walking around free. And he's got virtually unlimited resources, but isn't considered a flight risk.

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

And he's got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up.

Only 3?

I assume Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett are guaranteed to back him. Kavanaugh likely will, and Roberts if he thinks he can get away with it while maintaining his thin veneer of legitimacy.

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago
[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

“Thin veneer of legitimacy.”

He doesn’t have legitimacy, but he likes to pretend he does. Enough that he sometimes votes against the other conservative justices when it’s going to be 5-4 vs 6-3 anyway.

Edit: As chief justice I think Roberts has a better understanding of the legacy of his court, and it has caused him to be at least somewhat less gung-ho about the blatant partisan nature of the court. But definitely not always.

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

And he's got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up.

Thomas and Alito: "Are we a joke to you?!"

[-] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 10 points 3 months ago

Yes, but it's not very funny.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Trump has, in my humble opinion, something on the judge or the judge's family from his time in the office of the president and access to warrantless wiretapping all US Americans from LEO/CIA/NSA information.

Trump, in my humble opinion, has found and used private information to flex on the judge.

That, or she’s a True Believer.

this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
215 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18870 readers
3836 users here now

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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS