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
Actually, she answers to the 11th Circuit, and she's already been reprimanded by them twice. If Jack Smith brings a viable example of bias before them one more time, it's third strike, and she's out.
The problem is, many of her actions are completely within the scope of her duties, and she's basically doing "death by 1000 cuts." Hopefully Smith can make a cogent case for her removal soon.
ETA: at least one (maybe both) of those reprimands gave her the benefit of the doubt for being so new at adjudication. I don't imagine the 11th Circuit will be so generous again.
Thank you, I was under the impression that she was helping baby hands and there were no consequences for what she was doing. That's good to know, I'll look up the specifics later, unless you have an article in mind you could link me to.
I listen to the Legal AF podcast (irritating side comments, great and pretty accurate legal analysis, approachable even for an ignorant boomer) to stay abreast of the goings on. I haven't listened in the last few days, because I simply need a break, but I would guess they've already covered these new developments.
Legal AF's clickbait episode titles kill me, but the information is top notch.
Cleanup on Aisle 45 and Jack are both excellent sources of accurate information as well.
Daily Beans is also worth listening to.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
This is the first time I've heard of this.
IANAL. I heard it from lawyers on the Legal AF podcast. Take that for what you will.
I always expect it's I❤️ANAL and the heart didn't render.
It can be two things
I was thinking "INAL" ("I'm not a lawyer"), but I like "NAL" even better.
I'm skeptical of this but would love to be surprised.
What are the chances that she randomly draws Trump's cases twice. Of all people? It's shady as fuck.
And this right here is why it matters which president we vote for. Because they decide if we get judges like Aileen Cannon.
Would this cause a mistrial? I have no idea.
No clue. My guess is since they haven't even gotten to the official trial (set for March), she'd be swapped out for one of her counterparts, or the 11th Circuit would hear the case instead.
I doubt the 11th Circuit will do anything except wring their hands.
I heard that part from practicing lawyers with decades of experience, so unless you're a lawyer, I'll go with their assessment.
I mean, not that I blame you for going with their word over mine, but let's come back a few months from now and see how things shake out. I'd love to be wrong.
Believe me, I understand the cynicism. Listening to them is the only thing that has given me hope in these proceedings.
I thought one decision on a previous case was overruled for the judge but what were the other decisions she's been reprimanded for? Not trying to sound antagonist just I only heard of a single instance a higher court impacting her and was a previous case, the only thing that comes up for her with reprimand was when she reprimanded Jack Smith, but it was recent so that's probably why. Mean I do hope she was, if anyone was more pronounced for carrying water for Trump they'd have pole indents in their shoulders from the work.
The only 11th Circuit adverse ruling I've found for this case is from her gaffe in Sept. 2022. It's possible there's been another smaller one that media outlets just ignored, but I don't know.
The other definite instance was from a different case in June 2023, and the 11th circuit ruled that what she did was a grave "structural error," which I gather is significantly bad.
So they might be different cases, but going before them again and having your (at best) inexperience on display again is not a good look for a judge handling a case so novel and important to the entire country.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/aileen-cannon-judge-trump-documents-case-made-multiple-errors-earlier-rcna98207