She is 100% just doing what the federalist society is telling her to do
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
310 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2901 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
She is 100% just doing what the federalist society is PAYING her to do
I think we’ve learned from Clarence Thomas, federal judges are on the take. I hope someone is paying close attention to Cannon’s finances.
So by doing this the way she has set it up, she can now allow Trump's lawyers to present this amazingly poor case that the espionage act is too vague. If she then grants that motion to toss the charge, Jack Smith cannot appeal it, nor can Trump be charged with it again because of Double Jeopardy.
Our only hope is that Jack Smith is right now working on his case to force her recusal from the case, that he'll need to make to the 11th circuit.
EDIT - This all requires a jury sworn in - forgot that part.
Oh, so that’s how she’s intentionally fucking it up.
To clarify for future confused readers, most of us aren't mad that she is denying the motions to dismiss, far from it, but we're mad that she is doing so in a way that allows the defence to use these same ridiculous arguments in court.
The first request is that the "Espionage Act" is too vague to enforce, which is pretty much not how laws work at all. Generally the more vague it is: the more illegal activities fall under it.
The second request is that the Presidential Records Act allows the Trump Admin to decide which documents were personal at will and therefor gives him complete immunity. Which, again, is pure idiocy, but Judge Canon hasn't even given a ruling on that motion.
Member when they were like "o no the DNC is absolutely going to run Hillary" and everyone was like "lol well she can at least beat trump" and then four years of utter political insanity and this judge gets the biggest case to come out of that infected turd circus?
I dunno i thought i was going somewhere with that but maybe it's just a still life
Remember when Hilary threw the election away by not even campaigning in what were otherwise secure democratic states that she lost, and how she spent so much time giving secret talks to rich people and corporations behind security and white noise generators, and generally did everything she could to be unlikable? and if she had put in even the slighest modicum of effort, she'd be the president we complained about instead of the Trump horror show despite of all of Russias interference and bullshit?
I mean all of that might be true but I still put a lot of blame on the assholes who voted for trump.
Sometimes we act like only Democrats have agency, and Republicans are just like a force of nature. Like a fire that burns without thought or a bear that mauls because that's what bears do. But they're still people and they could have chosen something else.
Trump supporters are at fault.
"Clinton didn't come to my state and make me feel special" is not an acceptable justification for supporting the catastrofuck that is trump.
Its not "Clinton didnt come to my state and make me feel special"
its
"Clinton didnt go to these states, to engage with her base and share with them her vision, plans, goals, etc, Which allowed just enough to be swayed by those that did"
If this was 1840 I'd be more convinced. We have the internet. We've had radio for a hundred years. You shouldn't need to go to a rally to know what a major politican's visions, plans, goals, etc, are.
"I felt ignored" is a stupid emotional response, but I can understand it, kind of. Sometimes I'm petty, too. Feeling so ignored that you vote for trump is inexcusable, though. I don't think I'd excuse shirking your civic duty here, either.
You are sure hung up on this whole "I was ignored" thing.
Are you, specifically, upset that cause you felt ignored?
That's what I took from the "she didn't come to my state and share her vision with me, specifically" thing. Or the related "I don't like being called flyover country ", I guess. Maybe I just don't get the people in question.
I live in a major city and don't feel politically ignored. A little, what do you call it, victim of a tyranny of a minority, sometimes, what with like North and South Dakota having senators.
To be fair, that's mostly what her campaign manager was supposed to work out.
Mooooooook
Remember when the party fucked over Bernie for an institutionalized candidate who no-one liked instead?
And if you want to argue that they didn't have a choice, it's the difference of 300 delegates in the face of internal organizational opinion that you control. You can't maintain that it wasn't a choice. The DNC chose Hilary.
for an institutionalized candidate who no-one liked instead?
How idiotic can you get? If no one liked the nominee she wouldn't have had the most votes.
The DNC chose Hilary.
By "DNC" you mean the voters?
You can’t maintain that it wasn’t a choice.
Exactly. Stop pretending it wasn't the voter's choice. That is Trump level bullshit. There just wasn't enough of us voting Bernie.
You sweet summer child
I'm with you bud. This shit is confounding.
Also, you had my upvote at 'member'.
This part really stands out for me, because of where the criticism is coming from...
“The Judge’s ruling was virtually incomprehensible, even to those of us who speak ‘legal’ as our native language,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance wrote on Substack, calling part of her ruling “deliberately dumb.”
It hints at the judge's decision not being impartial.
If a jury would overrule the argument "no judge has ever ruled this unconstitutionally vague, including the judge on this case right now" then they were never going to find him guilty regardless.
Why does America treats presidents and ex-presidente as a protected class of citizens?
It's kind of funny.
They treat them like royalty. Even more royal than royals are treated.
Wealthy and connected
She only got her position by giving a wristy to Trump.
The Federalist Society wanted to put young judges in positions so that they'd last a long time.
In the process, they made a Cannon a judge, someone who doesn't know the difference between sanitation and sanitization. If there was ever a judge to get removed for sheer incompetence, it would be her.
We just need to make sure we reclaim and reform the supreme court so that we can yeet all her awful decisions until she can be removed from office.
Indeed
Lmao.
Please offer this legally bullshit argument to 12 random people.
We're all fucked.
Passing the buck like a coward.
I thought everything could be appealed. How can this not be?
In the US model of justice, the judge decides questions of law, and the jury decides questions of fact. This order appears to delegate a law question ("is it constitutional?") to a jury during the trial. If the jury finds the defendant innocent, then double jeopardy prevents any appeal which would change that verdict. Nobody, once declared innocent, can be put on criminal trial again for the same incident.
Not everything can be appealed. Especially if something is dismissed with prejudice, that's basically calling it officially dead.
When a trial involving a jury has resulted in a judgement of innocence it can't be appealed under pretty much any circumstances at all. The only way to appeal from the prosecution when they didn't win is if it's a hung trial / mistrial or equivalent error and there wasn't a ruling of innocence.
(under US law, plenty of other countries have some ability to appeal if they believe there was some serious error or new evidence has been found)