I’m glad they did it, but I’m frankly a bit mystified that they didn’t get the ball rolling on this sooner. The (clearly nonsensical) dismissal happened a while ago.
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
395 points (99.5% liked)
politics
18852 readers
4179 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.
- 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.
- 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
It takes time to get all your paperwork and argument sorted, and then more time to get an appeal scheduled.
We don't want this falling through because a procedural mistake.
Personally, I urge the impeachment of Judge Cannon... amongst a sea of corrupt officials they truly are someone who stands head and shoulders above the rest.
Even above Clarence Thomas?
Yes, I think that Judge Cannon is much more blatantly corrupt than Clarence Thomas and I don't say that lightly.
I can’t believe that anyone appointed by Trump is allowed to preside over Trump the defendant. That’s the most blatant conflict of interest I’ve ever heard. It’s cartoonishly corrupt.
I can't believe they're allowed to keep their positions when they were given those positions by a literal traitor to the nation. Same with his shitty policies.
Corrupt detective's cases are all put on hold and past ones looked over when found corrupt. Why isn't the fucking presidency any different? It should be more prevalent in this case.
Lawyers on podcasts I listen to have said it's normal and OK, but that Cannon is the exception who's making it look worse than usual. She's clearly in the tank for Trump. I'd also like to see her impeached.
Does your podcast live on Trigger Avenue?
It may be normal, but I don’t think it’s okay despite what lawyers say.
Yeah, I guess also we've never really seen a president-- the guy who makes the appointments-- on trial before, so it's definitely something I'd like to see reviewed
I suspect that Trump may yet inspire constitutional amendments in the future, but only after he's been removed from the chessboard
People need to show up, vote, and flip the house.
If we can flip the house and keep the senate, she can be impeached. She can’t be impeached now, because the corrupt folks that wanted her are protecting her.
Yeah a ton of people who are lining up to vote for Harris also need to vote to flip the house.
She is so blatantly biased. I wonder if even this Supreme Court would back her up.
She seems to have been advised by Clarence Thomas on this, so the idea to do this came from the supreme court.
Thomas did not definitively answer the question, but U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon echoed his approach to Trump’s election interference case
I don't think anyone on the Court is as far right or as nakedly corrupt as Thomas. Just because he's advising her, I wouldn't take that as an endorsement from the full Court. He frequently writes concurring opinions that go way beyond anyone else.
It's real interesting that they thought dismissal for a transparently bad reason has a better shot than dismissal for lack of evidence.
I was gonna say Alito, but even for him I had to pause because Thomas is just so bad.
Maybe, but for sure she is starting off with an active voice on the supreme court in her favor. That's a good start.
With Joe stepping down and a surge of support for Kamala, is there a point where the Supreme Court has to accept they’re not winning this time and switch to clean house of people who overplayed their hand?
What? No, definitely not. They're appointed for life and don't have to give a shit about anything Kamala could possibly do.
(Well, short of using the immunity they gave Trump to Seal Team Six them, I guess, but no Democrat is likely to do that and they know it.)
no Democrat is likely to do that
Honestly this is what pisses me off.
When an opponent who literally wants you or yours dead hands you a gun, shoot them with it. Because if you don't shoot, they will.
Republicans have handed democrats so many tools over the years they could easily wield against Republicans.... But they don't.
They take the "high road."
The Moral High Road is Filled With Corpses.
They don't even need violence. Just an official act that decrees that only 3 specific justices have case voting power. The other six are just non-voting members. Effective immediately.
If Democrats are ever lucky enough to get 2/3rds of the Senate (and 51% of the House), at that point the Supreme Court might start to think twice about their decisions.
Edit: unfortunately unlikely, though
Grossly unlikely. We're likely to see the country continue to consolidate most of the population into a few states. We could be seeing a situation in the next few cycles where it's outright impossible for Democrats to win the senate while blowing out the House and Presidential vote.
Gerrymandering has made it impossible to "blow out" the House too.
That only goes so far, and it's slowly being dismantled.
That's optimistic. It's a constant battle.