243
It's less of a rookie problem and more of a corrupt hack problem.
As a corrupt hack, I find that offensive.
Even corrupt hacks think this bitch too much
cuz she's also incompetent.
They're not "taking advantage of a rookie". They're in cahoots. I will guarantee you she sees an opportunity to angle this into a possible appointment higher up the judicial food chain if Trump gets re-elected, and wants to make sure Trump gets the hint that if she gets an appointment, she'll continue to run even more cover for him. And I guarantee you that Trump has already let her know that he intends to do that just so he can have another stooge higher up the food chain in his pocket.
This is all deliberate. She's not even trying to hide it. She doesn't have to. She knows there's zero chance she'll be removed from the bench for it, and if Trump wins the election it won't matter anyway and she'll be set for life. Even if her reputation is ruined and she ends up resigning in disgrace, the right-wing-talk-show circuit is quite lucrative these days, and I guarantee you that NewsMax or OANN would scoop her up in seconds. She knows that too.
When you look at what she's done, she's beyond obvious.
She had an order overturned early on, and then, rather than changing the types of things she's doing, she changed the format that she's using to do those things. She started using these paperless orders that are more difficult to challenge.
She's favoring Trump as much as she thinks is possible to get away with. And if Trump is elected, some have been saying that he plans to appoint Cannon to the Supreme Court.
And if Trump is elected, some have been saying that he plans to appoint Cannon to the Supreme Court.
Not exactly a new strategy to reward your cronies with lifetime appointments.
For fuck’s sake I am so sick of every fucking editor framing articles like this as if Cannon deserves even a shred of the benefit of the doubt.
She was appointed by Trump, and is very obviously politically and ideologically aligned with him.
He and his legal team went judge shopping on this case, and managed to get Cannon on it.
I would be 0% surprised to eventually learn that Cannon and Trump’s legal team were coordinating somewhat, even if only in a subtle fashion.
I agree with you on all points, except judge shopping in this case. The case was filed by prosecutors, not the defense. Defendants can't really judge shop a criminal case (beyond choosing to live in Florida I suppose, or the fact that Trump appointed hundreds of judges himself). She was technically selected by random chance out of that district's pool, though because of various factors the pool being picked from was pretty small, so there was a high chance of getting her. More details here if interested:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/10/us/politics/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-documents.html
Hence how she ended up with both Trump's stupid fight against the search warrant as well as the actual criminal case. So there wasn't judge shopping of the traditional sense, like patent cases always going to that particular district in Texas that tends to rule favorably for patent holders.
Yeah, fair point.
Fair point from the kind of people who don't wonder how one Texas statistician with links to the lottery commission won four jackpots
So... we gonna impeach the asshole or just accept that we can't have nice things.
He's already been impeached for all the good it did.
The issue is that the GOP has power, and they've hitched their wagon to Trump, meaning that they'll move heaven and earth to protect him. Rules, norms, fairness, representation and integrity don't matter one bit - it's all self-interest.
I think they meant Cannon
I indeed meant cannon, they're pretty openly incompetent.
Purposely incompetent.
"Judge Cannon is a bad judge and has made bad rulings and has favored Trump at every possible turn, number one," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Salon.
...
That factor presents a "bigger problem" than Trump's frequent delay tactics because she appears to have "lost control of the trial," David Schultz, a Hamline University legal studies and political science professor, told Salon.
This dichotomy keenly illustrates the core problem of the legal profession in confronting the current court system and rise of fascism. Rahmani gets that judges, like everyone else, have personal motivations and may be corrupt, especially judges elevated for no good (legal) reason by the actual defendant in a trial.
Schultz, like many in the profession, are doggedly devoted to the idea that the system is good and fine and any problems that occur are just innocent mistakes by dedicated jurists in over their head. The idea that the justice system might be corrupt goes against their foundational belief system about the wheels of justice and higher callings that they preach to new students year after year, so they will inadvertently cape for those abusing it and resist calls to reform the system or delegitimize any portion of it.
She's the sand in the cogs of the Justice system.
Crowbar, maybe
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
243 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19096 readers
2487 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