politics
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
view the rest of the comments
And he's so obviously right, this is incredible.
She did buy President Drink Bleach time though, and that's good for their fascist cause. But there's also a part of me thinking she could have dragged this out much longer. Maybe I'm wrong though.
The smarter people seem to be saying it's a mixed bag. She could have dragged the case out for more months, maybe even years. Or she could have seated a jury and done a different kind of dismissal thing that isn't appealable.
This path let's Jack Smith appeal to the 11th circuit (I think) immediately and they're the ones who rebutted her pretty soundly the last time she ruled on a Trump case. We can probably expect a reasonable ruling from them.
However, here's the rub. After 11th circuit or whatever has their say Trump can appeal to the Supreme Court. In their recent Presidential Immunity ruling there was a long response by Clarence Thomas that included a section questioning the legality of Jack Smith's appointment. Which is the same reasoning Cannon gives in her ruling. It's pretty clear that Thomas was signalling that he would rule in favor of Trump for that same reason if/when an appeal got to him.
It's not clear whether the rest of the conservatives on the court agree with Thomas but it all suggests this will go to the Supreme Court and at least one member has already signalled how they would rule. For the time being, Trump continues to prove that he is, in fact, above the law.
The dissenting opinion in their recent Chevron Deference ruling criticises Thomas and others for using this tactics repeatedly to overturn laws they don't like. They write opinions about one thing but include a bunch of questions about something only tangentially related. Then they'll suddenly take up a case that seems to centre exactly around that question they had. A case that was only filed after the initial ruling.
Cannon using Thomas' words is no mistake. It's the way these judges have been legislating from the bench.
Wait wait wait are you saying that Republicans crying about "activist judges ruling from the bench" for the last 20 years was just more projection!?
Say it ain't so! Republicans projecting their intent? Never!
The Federalist Society identified 40 years ago what they considered to be the problem, liberal activist judges.
They have spent the last four decades working their way into the judicial system and nomination process to achieve the current Supreme Court balance for their ultimate objective, conservative activist judges.
I feel like the only way this dismissal makes sense is if there have been back room conversations between Cannon and SCOTUS indicating that there is a majority to overturn any 11th circuit ruling. Cannon wouldn't have dismissed unless the outcome was in some way guaranteed because the outcome of seating a jury, then dismissing was absolutely guaranteed.
They are both Federalist Society puppets. It likely wasn’t even a back room deal, they probably all went out to dinner and laughed about doing this corrupt shit out in the open.
Yeah I’m sure she could have dragged it out even more if she really wanted to, but according a whole slew of current and former prosecutors, the motions she was putting off were things she should have decided on the spot. And any experienced judge not purposefully delaying things would have had no trouble ruling on those things from the bench. Instead, she sat on motions for months, chose to set ridiculous deadlines and hold separate hearing on issues that had already been decided elsewhere. She even accepted amicus briefs and had mini oral arguments for issues that she had no business ruling on (the legality of Smith’s appointment being one of them). Those types of hearings are super rare in a lower court and a case like this.
She’s wildly inexperienced and obviously corrupt, which is a pretty dangerous combination.