this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
323 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3086 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.

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. 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.
  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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In a scathing filing, the special counsel pushed back on Judge Aileen Cannon’s interpretations of laws that could define the case against Trump

Special Counsel Jack Smith went toe-to-toe with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon over her requests for jury instructions in Donald Trump’s classified documents case

In a scathing filing submitted Tuesday, Smith accused Cannon of operating on an “unstated and fundamentally flawed legal premise” when she requested that the parties in the case draft different versions of their proposed jury instructions based on their competing interpretations of laws governing classified materials and presidential records. 

Trump has argued that his retention of classified documents after his ouster from the White House was perfectly legal. Claiming that he both unilaterally telepathically declassified the documents, and that they were simply personal records he was already authorized to take. The former president’s trial on 40 charges related to his alleged mishandling of the documents is scheduled to begin in May, but will likely be delayed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I guarantee that it'll come back to bite her. The judiciary does not take kindly to rogue judges.

[–] meat_popsicle@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Ahh yes. Just like all those penalties for Matthew Kacsmaryk that will arrive aaaaany day now.

Federal judges serve for life. There’s not a whole lot anybody can do about this.

[–] techt@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Courts self manage their own judges. Usually an appeals court or a state supreme court will punish judges for misconduct. At the Federal level, I'm not sure if it starts at an appeals court or the SCOTUS, but they can definitely punish and remove federal judges as well. Impeachment is also an option, but that's a hard one to do.

[–] techt@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

I hear you, and those things seem nice at a glance, but I don't agree with your sense of guarantee. We're seeing an upending of things that "usually" happen, or that "definitely can" happen, especially with "self-managed" entities such as the SCOTUS. Have you seen judges actually get held accountable recently, even locally?