• nkat2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • barkingspiders@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        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.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          5 months ago

          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!

          • tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            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.

      • vortic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

    • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    5 months ago

    Lets hope this will lead to a real judge to preside over the case, and not just a Trump Minion.

    • Butt Pirate@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Fear not citizen! The judiciary has randomly selected:

      AILEEN. CANNON.

      To preside over this case. Rest assured all efforts were made to ensure a fair and speedy trial!

    • roguetrick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      That, unfortunately, it will not. She hasn’t come out and actually stated her bias, which is about what you need to do.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        She made a ruling that upended decades of precedent concerning the constitutionality of special council appointments.

        She may work for Conservatives, but she ain’t SCOTUS, and she doesn’t have the same ability to rewrite the law based on specious reasoning. Plus, she’s already been reprimanded and reversed by the 11th Circuit twice for questionable rulings.

        She doesn’t need to communicate bias, she just needs to make it clear that she’s unfit to adjudicate this case, which is pretty obvious at this point. If Jack Smith can prove any bias, it will just be icing on the cake.

  • vortic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m honestly surprised that she dismissed at this stage. If she could have dragged the case to the point where they had selected a jury, then dismissed for some reason, there would have been no right to an appeal. I do understand that Clarence Thomas essentially suggested that Cannon should take this route in one of his concurrences, but it seems like the wrong strategy when there was a possibility to dismiss without the possibility of appeal.

    I don’t mean that I wish she had dismissed later. I just mean that I’m surprised because I thought their strategy was going to be different with this case.

  • Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    If special council wins the appeal and Cannon stays on as judge that would be awkward. Of course it’ll go to the Supreme Court and by then the election will be over. If Trump wins the election and he knows he’ll be facing prosecution he’ll be desperate. We’ve seen what he’ll do to try and save face, if he’s looking at jail time I’m worried what he’ll do. You know this time he’ll surround himself with loyalists

  • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Too little too late. This should have been expedited from day 1. Good luck getting any resemblance of justice between now and November. After that nothing matters anymore because fascists will be in power, thanks to your slow dance.

  • Today@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    What’s a realistic timeline?

    ETA- i realize the real answer is never, but if we had a competent, unbiased judicial system, what would it look like?

      • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        The fun part is that when the defendant is not rich, our judicial system is very efficient. Numerous people have been thrown in jail over the exact thing Trump did in this case.

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    So where is it headed to get the rubber stamp this time? 5th circuit? Or is our system so incredibly stupid that it will somehow end up in front of cannon again?

    Smith needs to fight the fight, but the Republicans have been playing the decades long game of rigging the courts… While we were fighting over figurehead presidents the right was establishing the means to control all political outcomes…

  • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Will that be thrown out because he does not have standing then?

    Doesn’t this have to be appealed by the doj themselves?