679
'Confused' Judge Cannon needed concept explained 'slowly' to her in court by lawyers: NYT
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
679 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3616 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How is it not a conflict of interest that “Donald Trump appointed her to the lifetime position”. ? Haven’t judges been asked to recuse themselves over less? I’m genuinely confused.
I don't think that's fundamentally disqualifying. What's the proposal on who could reasonably try this case? Are appointees by political opponents okay? Only appointees pre Clinton?
The bigger problem, regardless of who is on trial, is she was never supposed to be on the bench.
Her promotion was purely ideological. It had nothing to do with her legal accumen.
It's definitely possible Trump could have found someone who was both technically skilled AND sheep dipped well enough not to be an obvious hack. But... why bother? The Senate didn't care enough to block her and they certainly aren't going to impeach her.
So democracy is working as designed.
I also don't think it's too high of a bar for the public to want a judge not appointed by the defendant for a criminal trial.
Wouldn't it be nice if the public had any say in the matter
Nah, the Founding Fathers specifically didn't want a moron like Trump running things, so this is democracy breaking down.
Is anything "fundamentally disqualifying"? It appears to me that nothing is. It's all honor code bullshit that only works when everyone is acting in good faith.
The real problem is that she was appointed in the first place. The system that made that possible was never designed to work when half the people running it are saboteurs.
In a normal court, the justices are often held in high regard, whereby whomever appointed them is hardly even a factoid.
The problem is that with Trump, he's known for quid pro quo as well as just not even knowing the person. Odds are good that Bannon slipped her name to Trump and suddenly she's "the most brilliant legal mind the nation has ever known. Just brilliant. Very smart."
Besides being nominated by Trump, I'm not sure if the prosecutors had any standing to have her recused.
She was selected by the Federalist Society. Trump rubber stamped her (like he did the vast majority of appointments he made.)
Maybe not at the time, but how about now?
Living in America 🎶