Hmmm. This has less of the feel of Judge Aileen being crooked, and more the feel of her simply not understanding the legal principles involved and focusing instead on the details that she does understand. Maybe it's both. Lord knows she's behaved in very corrupt ways already.
Score another victory for the right-wing project to (mis)educate a generation of lawyers on "conservative principles" and then use political power to advance those most committed to that conservative understanding of the law. It's terrifying that many Democrats still fail to equate voting for president with who's going to be on the Supreme Court.
Right on, pretty much, except for: "It's terrifying that many Democrats still fail to equate voting for president with who's going to be on the Supreme Court." I have been voting since 1980, and it seems this is always something that rears its head.
Why haven't her superiors recalled her from this case? Are they just hoping that the NYC case throws the Turnip in jail for them so they're not going to have to be the grown ups in the room or something? She's making a mockery of the judiciary.
Courts don't work that way. Nobody monitors the performance of a judge to see if they are competent, let alone "recalls" them if they're not. Many orders and decisions can be appealed if one of the parties thinks the judge has erred, but the worst an appeals bench can do is overturn the decision and make some harsh criticism of the judge's reasoning and/or conduct.
Smith does have the right to seek Cannon's removal because she has behaved improperly, but not because she's incompetent. Needless to say wise lawyers make VERY sure such an application will be successful, given the likelihood of increased bias if it fails.
Without even looking at the article, I'm gonna hazard a wild guess:
All the legal experts/commentators on earth are saying that they've never SEEN such malfeasance, not ever in their born days, that whatever Smirky is doing or not doing is completely insane and this will SURELY hand the 11th Circuit a gold plated excuse to finally kick her off the case.
Smith's reaction to Trump's aggression results in Cannon saying it's A-OK to lie to the public.
Coincidentally, Smith has evidence about Trump's lying about the documents and Trump's theft of them is aggression against the USA. But two coincidences make a pattern.
Ironically, protecting secret documents helps prevent aggression against the US.
I remember the splash page on all the news sites the day Alvin Bragg indicted Defendant PAB. TRUMP INDICTED!!! About 2 minutes later “Experts worry blah blah.”
And here we are, with Bragg’s case the only one to go to trial before November. Godspeed, woke-ass liberal Manhattan jury.
missing here is that Trumps lawyers did not want to discuss this this week but tried to put off meeting with prosecutor to have discussion after another week of Trump and his big mouth.
"...follow-up discussion as necessary about the factual and legal basis underlying the motion." People could get KILLED, you tapdancing sycophant. But please, do go on about 'basic requirements'....
Can someone please explain to me why exactly all of her non-decision decisions are unappealable? It makes no sense how a judge is allowed to set down a response but no one can do shit about it when she’s obviously wrong.
so in this case she made her decision not on the issue at hand but rather on the fact that Jack Smith didn't "follow all the rules"- he did according to most people's ideas of it, particularly given that opposing counsel, instead of being professional, literally are True Believers and hence just want to drag this thing out at all costs.
This is like if you turn in a draft of an semester-long essay you worked super hard on & need feedback on ASAP & the teacher just hands it straight back to you and says "I won't check this over until it's all in Times New Roman, size 12, with margins 1 inch on either side & double spaced." Never mind that it's all of that except that the margins are 0.98" on either side...
Smith and his team followed the spirit of the law--sometimes a prickly thing and sometimes different from the letter of the law--while Trump's team is being obstructionist morons. Any reasonable jurist would have sat on the bench in open court and told defense counsel to either play ball or pound sand.
As for your metaphor, in this case Jack Smith turned in the assignment to "Professor" Cannon at mid-term. He followed the instructions, but she's in her office bellyaching that he used sources she'd actually have to--gasp!--look up. And then she files the whole paper away until the week of finals and still doesn't actually mark it up.
apparently she has to make certain kinds of rulings that are appealable (i think here it's 'without prejudice'). andrew weissman (prosecuting donald trump and most nights on MSNBC) and mueller she wrote/jack/clean-up on aisle 45 are great legal podcasts (amongst others). they all really explain things in the weeds.
It saddens me that people come on here and say such things. (I have no idea what they actually posted, but I know it violated the rules.) Threaten Cannon with having to teach remedial patent law at the Northvale Law School for Special Young Offenders or something, but violence? Violence is so rarely the answer.
The Legal Realm: Where reality and common sense absolutely go to fucking die.
Hmmm. This has less of the feel of Judge Aileen being crooked, and more the feel of her simply not understanding the legal principles involved and focusing instead on the details that she does understand. Maybe it's both. Lord knows she's behaved in very corrupt ways already.
Score another victory for the right-wing project to (mis)educate a generation of lawyers on "conservative principles" and then use political power to advance those most committed to that conservative understanding of the law. It's terrifying that many Democrats still fail to equate voting for president with who's going to be on the Supreme Court.
Like Dick Durbin? I always thought hecwas more of firebrand but lately l don't know what universe he is living in.
There is just no way Jack Smith eas assogned THIS judge by lottery. It just seems so impossible that Trump could get that lucky.n
Right on, pretty much, except for: "It's terrifying that many Democrats still fail to equate voting for president with who's going to be on the Supreme Court." I have been voting since 1980, and it seems this is always something that rears its head.
Why haven't her superiors recalled her from this case? Are they just hoping that the NYC case throws the Turnip in jail for them so they're not going to have to be the grown ups in the room or something? She's making a mockery of the judiciary.
Courts don't work that way. Nobody monitors the performance of a judge to see if they are competent, let alone "recalls" them if they're not. Many orders and decisions can be appealed if one of the parties thinks the judge has erred, but the worst an appeals bench can do is overturn the decision and make some harsh criticism of the judge's reasoning and/or conduct.
Smith does have the right to seek Cannon's removal because she has behaved improperly, but not because she's incompetent. Needless to say wise lawyers make VERY sure such an application will be successful, given the likelihood of increased bias if it fails.
We are seeing the successful outcome of a very long game. I will give conservatives credit for that.
This has probably been posted before, but she left the option to file the motion again. It's another stall tactic on her part.
I cannot wait until she's thrown off any and all judiciary. She has NO right to be in any court, let alone as a judge.
History will be very unkind to her.
Without even looking at the article, I'm gonna hazard a wild guess:
All the legal experts/commentators on earth are saying that they've never SEEN such malfeasance, not ever in their born days, that whatever Smirky is doing or not doing is completely insane and this will SURELY hand the 11th Circuit a gold plated excuse to finally kick her off the case.
...Did I get it?
Pretty darn good.
Smith's reaction to Trump's aggression results in Cannon saying it's A-OK to lie to the public.
Coincidentally, Smith has evidence about Trump's lying about the documents and Trump's theft of them is aggression against the USA. But two coincidences make a pattern.
Ironically, protecting secret documents helps prevent aggression against the US.
But to be fair, the judge did schedule the trial for the FIFTH of Never.
Ta, Evan.
I remember the splash page on all the news sites the day Alvin Bragg indicted Defendant PAB. TRUMP INDICTED!!! About 2 minutes later “Experts worry blah blah.”
And here we are, with Bragg’s case the only one to go to trial before November. Godspeed, woke-ass liberal Manhattan jury.
'Professional Courtesy' is the name of my friends lesbian hard core punk band. Stop on by some time Judge Shit for Brains.
When and how can Jack Smith file for a new judge? It SEEMS like naked partisanship isn’t a reasonable position for a judge to take…but I’m no lawyer.
Guess who makes the case law about when you can remove a judge? Judges do. It's an unreasonably heavy lift.
missing here is that Trumps lawyers did not want to discuss this this week but tried to put off meeting with prosecutor to have discussion after another week of Trump and his big mouth.
"...follow-up discussion as necessary about the factual and legal basis underlying the motion." People could get KILLED, you tapdancing sycophant. But please, do go on about 'basic requirements'....
Can someone please explain to me why exactly all of her non-decision decisions are unappealable? It makes no sense how a judge is allowed to set down a response but no one can do shit about it when she’s obviously wrong.
so in this case she made her decision not on the issue at hand but rather on the fact that Jack Smith didn't "follow all the rules"- he did according to most people's ideas of it, particularly given that opposing counsel, instead of being professional, literally are True Believers and hence just want to drag this thing out at all costs.
This is like if you turn in a draft of an semester-long essay you worked super hard on & need feedback on ASAP & the teacher just hands it straight back to you and says "I won't check this over until it's all in Times New Roman, size 12, with margins 1 inch on either side & double spaced." Never mind that it's all of that except that the margins are 0.98" on either side...
Make sense?
Smith and his team followed the spirit of the law--sometimes a prickly thing and sometimes different from the letter of the law--while Trump's team is being obstructionist morons. Any reasonable jurist would have sat on the bench in open court and told defense counsel to either play ball or pound sand.
As for your metaphor, in this case Jack Smith turned in the assignment to "Professor" Cannon at mid-term. He followed the instructions, but she's in her office bellyaching that he used sources she'd actually have to--gasp!--look up. And then she files the whole paper away until the week of finals and still doesn't actually mark it up.
She actually added MORE rules, too! Ugh. God bless Jack Smith & his appeal of this unholy process.
apparently she has to make certain kinds of rulings that are appealable (i think here it's 'without prejudice'). andrew weissman (prosecuting donald trump and most nights on MSNBC) and mueller she wrote/jack/clean-up on aisle 45 are great legal podcasts (amongst others). they all really explain things in the weeds.
can we not threaten judges with anything but disbarment & removal from their prestigious roles?
It saddens me that people come on here and say such things. (I have no idea what they actually posted, but I know it violated the rules.) Threaten Cannon with having to teach remedial patent law at the Northvale Law School for Special Young Offenders or something, but violence? Violence is so rarely the answer.
How can she be removed?
Sweet Jesus, what does Smith need to do to get her removed? Isn't there some sort of legal recourse?