Thursday night, prosecutors alerted federal Judge Aileen Cannon in Southern Florida that after Trump’s lawyers asked her to delay his trial there because it was too close in time to his trial in the District of Columbia, they turned around and asked the Judge in D.C.
She should have recused herself after she made an ass of herself defending Trump and was humiliated by the appellate court for her ostensible incompetence. It's possible that Smith thinks a jury will hear the evidence and convict despite Cannon's shenanigans.
Sure. She doesn't even bother to try to conceal it, and why should she? She's protected by the entire Republican MAGA party, and maybe she's hoping that she'll be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court someday.
No. Think of it this way - if there is anything that destroys impartiality, it's a judge who must be babysat or monitored, just as if we had a prosecutor who couldn't be trusted and was assigned a shadow prosecutor to keep them in line.
Not necessarily. But it's less worrisome than if this should happen in any of the other cases against him. I think the documents case was doomed the moment Aileen Cannon was assigned to it. And even if Trump were to be convicted in that case, he isn't likely to go to prison. All we really need is one felony conviction to fulfill the 14th Amendment requirement saying Trump is ineligible to run again.
This case is heading into a dumpster unless and until SC Smith & co. file an appeal at the first opportunity...*Judge* Cannon is just sailing along openly favouring the defense, ignoring points of law as well as federal rules governing trials, and just generally dragging the procedures down to amateur-hour status...shameful conduct by a federal judge in a case of this magnitude.
True Gordon, she will overstep on the same level as her past behavior: advising Trump's attorneys to rewrite their brief. The Eleventh had a hissy over that.
I couldn’t find the exact info I was looking for, but I did find this Vox article. It’s quite detailed and specifically addresses Cannon, 11th Circuit judges, the screw up that got her smacked down, and refusals.
You have to have an appealable issue. There's nothing to appeal at this point. You can't bring an appeal over a clearly biased order like this, but you can use it as evidence in a later appeal.
Recuse is something she should have done. Appeal is something that is done to her. So there is time to appeal and as Michele Desoer points to: one needs to have something to appeal. She's going to overstep. Then Jack Smith will take that to the 11th Circuit Court and as Michele says, this bonehead maneuver can be used as evidence.
The silence from Smith’s team could indeed be the prelude to a strategic move. If they're gathering intel on Judge Cannon, it could signal an intent to appeal to the circuit court. It's a classic chess maneuver—quietly positioning your pieces before a pivotal play. Keep an eye on this; it may unfold into a significant legal gambit.
Joyce Vance has taken Judge Aileen Cannon to task in the most legal of ways. Rarely, if ever, do we have the opportunity to learn the scope of a judge's knowledge and responsibilities when making rulings. Thank you for this expert lesson about the judiciary, as expressed in 'Judge Cannon's Response.
WOW! Judge Cannon is certainly showing where her loyalty lies. And it isn’t with the law and the people of this country. I wonder if she takes vacations with Clarence Thomas.
More like Harlen Crow - Thomas doesn’t pay for his own vacations. And what I think is notable is that hers is the only court NOT getting bombarded with threats of harm, OR, she succumbed to them. But the bottom line remains, Trump is banking on the fact that he has no standards and the prosecutors are forced to tap dance for this amateur judge.
She is far from impartial. It has been evident from the outset that she is biased and unfit to sit on the bench. The filing was 19 words over this ridiculous 200 word maximum.
Jack Smith should consider going to the 11th Circuit. This faux judge can’t be allowed to keep hearing this case.
Judge Cannon might be counting on becoming a Justice of the Supreme Court if Trump or another Republican is elected president. A sweet lifetime appointment for which she is not qualified.
She is already grifting the American people by having a lifetime appointment. If she ever gets nominated for a higher position, DC Appellate or SC, the Democrats must block her nomination.
No, he's just doing this with the military so that there won't be anyone at the top, and then the orange sadist can follow Project 2025 and choose who he wants for his own private military. TERRIFYING!
Hi kdsherpa, Your fear hinges on Trump being elected. Our focus is on electing Blue and trying to strengthen our democracy. We have holes we can drive a truck through because of the partisan court decisions and the appointment to judgeships that have been so overtly favoring to the wealthy. Trump is going to have the shine taken off of him after his NY fraud trial strips him of his ill-gotten gain. The MAGA cultists who were enchanted with who he pretended to be will have a bit of reality therapy. Folks like Tommy Tuberville will never change. But we can push for individual appointments, even if it takes 700 hours and the senate has to work through some holidays. They are already tired of him. He was blasted from the senate floor last week: not sure how many senators disparaged him, but a number.
That's how all autocrats operate, but their minions don't catch on til it's too late. Great examples in the new New Yorker article about China; ditto Russia, of course - a master class in treachery.
Indeed LaurieOregon, All autocrats, as in Russia (Trump's buddy Putin) having a lot of failing balcony rails and unexplained doses of poison; Trump's buddy Thaci in Kosovo, harvesting and selling body parts of his past political opponents/innocent civilians; thousands of murders of political opponents of Duterte (another dictator and Trump buddy in the Phillipines); Trump has stated that he 'gets along with dictators.' I actually was thinking of Noriega in Panama. He was 'our crook' until he wasn't...so in true fashion: she will be 'Trump's judge' until she isn't. I think one of the most valuable lessons I have learned was from a senior senator who is now retired (and deceased). I was troubled over theft of hard earned funds for a humane society. He said: "Just wait a while. Things always change." I did, a corrupt city manager was fired, we embarrassed the city over theft, we tripled the fundraising amount and built the shelter that had been threatened. And the city paid for the management. But I see that on this website today: people are anxious over Jack Smith, and trying to second-guess him. He has a plan A, a plan B and a plan C. He has put corrupt former presidents in jail at The Hague (one a friend of Trump btw). So I think we should settle down and send him (and Fani) our positive energy. Jack brought Alex Whiting, his buddy from The Hague, on board to help with these kinds of issues. Trump is on the run.
kdsherpa, God will forbid. We need to stay together and get the Blue vote for the House, Senate and Biden. Then we need to work locally to bring back Civics instruction to public schools.
Linda, No Child Left Behind was one of the worst education decisions in more than 200 years: and based on false information that we need to conform to a 'drill, repeat, and test' pedagogy in public schools - when every elite private school in the nation knew that was a roadmap to failure. Bring back civics and social studies and stop retaining little kids in kindergarten and first grade because 'they do not read at grade-level.' Their job in all the early childhood grades (including preschool) is to learn to be part of a community. They will ALL read when they are ready - but they can never recover from losing their first cohort/community. We can see exactly who (in the Legislature and as a former president) did not have a good preschool education - either in a school setting or at home. And I'm not talking about day care. I'm talking about an NAYEC kind of preschool education. One that teaches little kids that they can't whomp the other kid to take their cookie and they can't bite or grab or pinch to steal it either. If they do, they have some time out. Trump never went past Stage 1 in Kohlberg's six stages of moral development: blind egoism, he only recognizes his own needs.
I had the good fortune of attending the initial eight grades of school in Ohio, where the educational framework was based on the Amherst Classification of Individualized Learning. Subjects such as civics, social studies, history, and Latin were all mandatory parts of the curriculum.
You are so fortunate. I as well had a ‘college prep’ curriculum back in the day. I also took Latin and two other languages. But my real life civics lessons were my parents’ involvement in League of Women Voters and leading the charge at the PTA. Voting, jury duty - the whole nine yards -
Thank you Charlie. And how horrific NCLB was and has been for you to experience as a teacher. I say frequently that we 'have our work cut out for us' when Biden wins. We cannot sit back and happy dance: we need to reform curricula to include civics, social studies, history for all. Do you have a substack? Perhaps you could lead the charge that way. Not that I'm trying to volunteer you for the board of a League of Women Voters or anything, but 'kind of.'
In not seeking Cannon's recusal before proceedings began, what was Jack Smith thinking -- that somehow "optics" matter? No, for the Trumpists it's all abuse of power and disregard for the law and the Constitution. To paraphrase Maya Angelou: "When fascists show you who they are, believe them the first time."
Eric, He was thinking that if he asked for change of venue he might lose because most of the document taking activity occurred at Mara Lardo; and changing venu would take precious time that he did not want to take with an election coming; he drew one of four judges in an eligible pool (minus the senior judge) in the district; he hoped she would recuse herself (she did not) and he did not want to take up time with an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court. The bad luck of the draw fell with her: inexperienced and biased.
Thanks for the explanation. I continue to struggle with what we see so frequently, huge and glaring differences between verified reality and what takes place in court proceedings. Why do things we know to be true, with our own eyes, get lost once legal processes get underway?
Joyce, you wrote: "Perhaps she wants to avoid displeasing people whose support she thinks she may need in the future." Bingo. I suspect the support she expects to seek isn't just in the voting booth or the halls of the Federalist Society.
The Appellate is not likely to step in unless there is a way to appeal this to them. I don’t see anything appealable here, but it certainly is another piece of the argument they may eventually be able to make to the appellate court.
Help us understand why Cannon’s response does not fit into a pattern of bias? And thus, taken together with the Special Master debacle, why this piece of writing isn’t evidence I’d bias sufficient to appeal? Surely the 11th C. Court is watching intently.
Carol, Michele Dosoer (writing above) is an attorney and explained that this bonehead maneuver (my term) is not egregious enough on which to make an appeal. But at the time Cannon does overstep (she will), this can be used as evidence for Jack Smith to appeal. Cannon may do something extreme such as acquittal at the end.
It is still unclear to me - given Cannon’s egregious baseless legal retort to DOJ and the stunning smack down delivered by the 11th. C. Court in the Special Master debacle - why the cumulative weight of Cannon’s judgment errors (or indifference to or ignorance of fine points of law) and imperious, fitful temperament would not justify her speedy removal. If the hesitation is fear of delaying the trial until after the election, Cannon’s handling of motions thus far suggests, if not demonstrates, that she will push the trial as far as possible regardless. I think waiting for an acquittal is a bigger gamble. Just about any communication/motion/response filed by Jay Bratt or Jack Smith seems to spark her ire. Perhaps they could devise something to send her over the edge and then appeal for recusal.
And rump is proud of controlling the executive, legislative, AND judicial branches of the government. Anyone read Rachel Maddow's new book _Prequel_ about the nazis in Germany funding propaganda sent FREE from Congressional offices by official frank? We really need to learn from the 1920s and 30s' Nazi movement and organizations in this country, well-supported by German government funds.
Some of the despair I observe herein today has the appearance of relationship to the electoral cycle, i.e., a need to perceive something happening ahead of 11/24.
That's not what this is about, nor should it be.
SC Smith's executing his job virtually perfectly.
Our job (which I'm not sure we're executing optimally, since it mostly doesn't comprise online activity 😏) is to vote and get out the vote.
Thank you Gordon. If we do get out the vote, all the angst will be moot. And no matter the antics and delays Cannon takes, Trump's convictions will not be pardoned.
I had suggested that it would be worth the sturm und drang to get Trump convicted before this judge, in a part of the district that voted for him. I may have been wrong. It may well be time for the special prosecutor to turn to the 11th Circuit--or at least the chief judge of the district--about re-assigning the matter.
Not sure he had a choice, at least as a practical matter. If he had filed in DC (presumably, Trump first got the documents in the White House, although maybe not, he would have had to show how how they got to Mar a Lago.
Judge Cannon is steering the Trump legal saga into uncharted territory, and not in the way that one might expect from a federal judge. The unfolding events in her courtroom are more than just legal maneuvers; they are a clear sign that Trump may successfully skirt a trial with Cannon at the helm.
Right out of the gate, Cannon's approach to Trump's defense team screams of a favoritism that's troubling to anyone expecting a fair legal process. She's doling out extensions and delays like candy at a parade, constructing a protective bubble around Trump that could very well ensure he never stands trial.
When you stack up her actions against her past as an appellate litigator, the picture gets even more jarring. Cannon's willingness to jump on the prosecution for a 200-word breach of conduct, while mum on Trump's team playing hide-and-seek with their motions in D.C., is a staggering display of judicial imbalance.
This isn't just a story about legal filings and courtroom spats—it's a narrative about a judge whose courtroom demeanor and decisions don't align with the gravity of a case involving a former President. The tug-of-war with the Special Counsel’s office, the bias in favor of Trump—it all adds up to a case stalled before it can even start.
Looking back at Cannon's previous rulings that didn't pass muster with the 11th Circuit, it's not just a pattern; it's a predictor. It suggests that her current trajectory in handling Trump's case isn't just a deviation from norms—it's a potential collision course with judicial review and questions about her fitness to preside over this case.
And let’s talk about second chances. The Special Counsel's office must be kicking themselves for not pushing for Cannon's recusal from the get-go. It was a misstep that might have rerouted this whole legal drama to a place where a trial was a possibility.
Putting it all together, what you get isn't just partiality; it's a judicial blockade. Under Judge Cannon's watch, it seems Trump’s day in court may be just a mirage, challenging the bedrock principle that justice is blind—that in America, no one is above the law.
Hello dear friend Gloria, Your thesis hinges on Trump being elected in 2024. Otherwise, no matter the delay, the case will go to trial and be heard by a jury - who will have been informed by the serious defeat he will suffer in his New York business fraud case; the January 15, 2024 reminder (again in New York) that he is a convicted rapist who must pay the amount determined by that jury; Stormy Daniels case is hovering; Jack Smith has a powerful case in DC to show Florida document jurers that don-Don attempted to steal their votes; and finally they will have seen his some of his co-conspirators testify against him right up the road in Georgia [it's not over until the fat lady sings in Georgia, and Fani Willis may have more than four co-conspirators lined up to plea deal]. My view is that he is not going to be re-elected. In the meantime, Cannon can rule for aquital or call for a mistrial and Jack Smith would then appeal. My prayer is that she does something extremely egregious that would be as bad as her other two trips to the Eleventh Circuit and they would rule on it; and I'm not sure Jack Smith's next option, but perhaps an immediate request for her to be canned from the Trump document case. (I suggested earlier that she had advance notice that Trump was going to ask DC for an extension to his trial date). Where is our intelligence community when we need them? Everything she has done thus far smacks of her being in the waterbed with the other side - whenever they move. She is indeed 'in the tank' and a little bit too involved in their having a positive outcome.
Yes he was convicted. The jury found him guilty of sexually abusing E. Jean. She went on television that night with Robbie and during the interview, she said “he raped me.” The next day Trump was in court with the same judge, requesting the judge vacate the charges - because, Trump said “I was found not guilty of rape.” The judge then said:
“You raped her.“ The judge went on to explain to Trump, that the reason the jury found him “guilty of sexual abuse”was because the statute was so narrow in New York, that they couldn’t find rape. But the judge said “you raped her.“ And that is in the Washington post. so we can say publicly that he is a rapist because the Washington Post and I believe New York Times published those statements. It was said in a public courtroom, and it was published. I’m walking my dogs right now and it’s getting dark. However, as soon as I’m back, I’ll send that link to you so you can read it for yourself. I have used the term ‘he a rapist ’many times on this website. So have others. If you have a Washington Post subscription, you can pull it up but I’ll do it when I get back. The judge also said that on January 15, when she goes back to trial, the only thing the jury will need to do is determine how much Trump needs to pay her. That pretty much ended Trump’s insistence that he didn’t rape E. Jean. Whatever he wants to portray, the judge has publicly stated: You. Raped. Her.
I know what was said by the judge, the news, and EJC, and I agree 100%, but that is not what he was held accountable for. And it wasn't a criminal case.
“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.
He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”
The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”
So, Judge Kaplan states that the jury found him guilty of rape: "...the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
So by this statement, Judge Kaplan clarified that the jury found Trump guilty of rape in a court of law. No semantics there. But you are correct that it was not in a 'criminal court of law.' The civil conviction allows her to collect damages on January 15, 2024. I hope it is a lot of money. I know she was awarded $5 Million. But the jury will have a chance to award more on January 15, 2024. She was damaged. He is a jerk and a convicted rapist.
Erika, I don’t mean to get in an argument over ‘semantics’ (your term) because this is not a question of semantics at all.
I called Trump a convicted rapist, and if you want to press the point that the jury couldn’t convict and rape because the statute was too narrow, I will agree with you. He’s a rapist and I will continue to call him that at every opportunity. I’ll still send the Washington Post link for you when I return from my walk. And when the jury meets on January 15, 2024, the award they give will most likely be based on the fact that Trump raped her.
Also, it’s interesting to me, that he still tried to substitute the conflict the day after he was found guilty by trying to portray that he was not a rapist.
"Only Congress has the authority to remove an Article III judge. This is done through a vote of impeachment by the House and a trial and conviction by the Senate. As of September 2017, only 15 federal judges have been impeached, and only eight have been convicted. Found at: US Courts.gov." So yes. We need to win the House and Senate and of course elect Biden and press for her impeachment.
With any luck at all, mine (AL-05) wouldn’t survive 2024; he’s so deep in trump’s pocket he has to suck air from a straw. But AL is so red and gerrymandered, he has little to fear from some damn democrat.
How can we trust the court with such inexperienced, biased people making decisions? Self-preservation is not the job of a judge. Applying the law fairly without any form of prejudice, is expected. This makes a sham of the system. No wonder there is no "common good" among us! What are our young people going to do with this example. <sigh>
Julie, We have had inexperienced biased people making decisions on the Supreme Court for decades. Clarence Thomas sat on the DC Court of Appeals for 19 months before Bush Senior nominated him to the Supreme Court to replace Thurgood Marshall. Nineteen months on the job experience in appeals does not qualify one for SCOTUS. He was and is incompetent.
Personally, I think we should pick another word. Don’t fall for the equivocation by using biased. I believe that’s exactly what Fox News wants the narrative to be. Their viewers are so simple and disengaged and easily conclude “all <insert here> are the same.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Note that Hunter Biden is charged with an unloaded fire arms while a week ago the entire county where Lewiston sits was under lockdown tracking a mass shooter and Trump is facing 91 indictments. Judge Cannon is abusing her power and the law for her own reasons as a means to delay. No one is innocent who would go to the ends of the earth for delay. And there is a big difference between a life-appointment and the lawful constitutional right for investigative reporting. Point is, We shouldn’t just scream bias and maybe start asking the question of has anyone bought her Mother a house lately? Pick up some acreage for lucrative profit? Because who delays a trial for a man accused of mishandling and sharing state secrets and then shield’s the gov’t from finding the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Hi Molly, I’m open to your suggesting any word to use other than ‘biased’ so long as it describes: “One who makes legal decisions that favor the guy who appointed one to a judgeship.” If Fox News is upsetting to you, I suggest you turn it off. Who cares ? I have no clue about them hopping up and down about my using the term ‘bias.’. None of my sources have news that is regurgitated by mainstream ‘personalities’ who can hardly be called journalists or put two cogent thoughts together. I’ve been called lots of things, but being equivocating is not one of them. I usually pretty much know exactly where I stand. I am not equivocating about Cannon or Clarence Thomas. I think they are both biased, and they are and were both less than qualified when they were appointed to their judgeships. Cannon’s case involves unauthorized Top Secret documents that were allegedly taken by an ex-president by whom she was appointed to her judgeship. I’m not the definitive source for who is and who isn’t experienced or thought to be biased, but you can Google to read the opinions of numerous well credentialed legal experts who have expressed concerns about Cannon. One called her ‘Jack Smith’s worst nightmare.’ That was before Cannon had spent one minute on the case. So far as her bias, you only need to pull the records of the 11th circuit court, who have twice reprimanded her for bias. If Fox is upset over Cannon’s being called biased they can do two things: they can take it up with the 11th circuit court and they can call Cannon on the phone and tell her to quit being biased.
No one on this site has suggested that Cannon has accepted a house for her mother or ‘picked up some lucrative property.’ We do not need to allow Fox News to substitute the conflict.
The conflict is that the ex President of the United States, took Too Secret documents from the White House in Washington DC without having authorization (see the letter from the acting Director of the national archives, May 8, 2021).
Re Thomas, we assume decision making is made by justices with integrity. And we don’t think one is an Integritist if he sits on the court making decisions on a case involving donors from whom he has accepted gifts. And it is worse when we learn that a Justice hasn’t reported gifts. We wonder if he’s sneaking around. Where our assumption comes in, is the way we have historically known justices. Thurgood Marshall comes to mind and Ruth Ginsberg comes to mind. We’ve never heard of them sneaking around. We do accept that they are conservative or liberal but the standard is that they recused themselves from cases that involved self interest. In the case of Thomas, because he did not disclose his gifts from the donor, he couldn’t very well recuse himself from the case(s) when they came before him, without admitting he had received undisclosed gifts. So that tarnishes our idea of him being able to make unbiased decisions. He had 19 months experience on the Washington DC appeals court, and had worked as an attorney at the department of education when he was nominated to a position on the highest court in the United States. By the time you get to be a federal judge or a Supreme Court justice, you’re supposed to have experience to bring to the job. You’re not supposed to learn on the job. But you wanted to talk about not using the term ‘bias.’ What are you going to suggest for a term describing these kinds of behaviors by a justice making decisions that impact our democracy while the Justice decides (three times thus far, and she’s been reprimanded twice by the 11th circuit court) in favor of the alleged criminal who has given the appointments?
Cannon is biased and she needs to be booted. She does not have enough experience for a case involving top-secret documents improperly held by the man who appointed her to her position. Does it sound to you that I am equivocating about whether I think Cannon is biased and inexperienced or whether I care about ‘Fox News’ opinion? I didn’t even know they had an opinion about my bias. It’s not my place to tell you what news station you should listen to. But if you’re looking for an unbiased news source, I could suggest a couple of sources besides Fox News.
This is one of the most informative, best-written, and understandable posts I've ever read on the subjects of judicial bias, qualifications, and the role of judges and justices. Your detailed analysis and clear explanations make complex topics much more accessible and thought-provoking.
I had an absolute blast diving into your post at the ungodly hour of 6:40 AM in my neck of the woods!
Your posts have always been like hidden gems of wisdom, but this one takes the cake. It's like the Mona Lisa of online discussions, but in words. You've turned the labyrinth of judicial bias and qualifications into a well-lit, neon sign-guided path at the Las Vegas Neon Museum, making it feel as easy to navigate as a kiddie pool.
And let's not forget the nostalgia trip! Your insights took me back to the swinging 60s of civics classes. a time when dinosaurs ruled the land, and we all donned pieces of fur to stay stylish. Thanks for the enlightening journey through time and thought-provoking discourse.
There are actually constitutional law attorneys on this site and this is their area. I’m not an attorney and I’m not a legal scholar. I’m just wading in from the context of someone who thought from childhood that the SCOTUS justices were impeccable. I’m happy to be corrected by anyone, but the shine was off for me when George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, who didn’t have an ounce of experience. That’s even setting aside the strong testimony of Anita Hill (whom I believed absolutely).
The nomination was probably unfair to Clarence Thomas as he wasn’t qualified and because it truly is a place where you cannot learn on the job. He just didn’t have the character to refuse the nomination. I think one needs some experience. You don’t get court experience sitting at the department of education. I thought the court’s decision during Bush v. Gore was partisan. And I was terribly disappointed. That was when the varnish came off for me, and I wanted to move to Japan. I just wanted to leave a country that had so disappointed me. My department chair talked me out of doing so. When SCOTUS remanded that to Florida’s Supreme Court, I thought we had lost our democracy and lost checks and balances. Why even have a supreme court if they’re going to be making partisan decisions?’ I thought Sandra Day O’Connor made a partisan decision on Bush v. Gore and that disappointed me. After she retired, she spoke about the trend of courts becoming partisan. For me that was ‘too little too late.’ I don’t think it hurts to be aware of history and its trends. But we’re talking about today’s problem, not the history of the Court. Joyce is very clear about the character and quality of Cannon. And our big job remains to stay on point and throw everything we have behind Biden. The current threat to our democracy is extreme and real.
There are trolls on this site and no matter how they try to couch their MAGA views with questions, the fact that they want to drag Fox News opinions into anything is my high alert. Even though I should just respond “Oh, please,” I try to be kind. I should quickly slap them away like others do. Anyone who is (seriously) listening to Fox News isn’t going to pay any attention to anything I have to say:)
It’s quite a thought, isn’t it, that back when the Constitution was penned, they didn’t really spell out what makes someone Supreme Court material? Kind of left us with a mixed bag of justices over the years. It's like, what's the secret sauce for a justice? Legal smarts, life experience, a steady moral compass?
The Grifter, otherwise known as Clarence Thomas — his nomination definitely shook things up. Got any thoughts on the must-haves for a justice's resume?
And Bush v. Gore — wow, did that case throw us for a loop. It's like watching a soccer match and thinking, “Are the referees playing for one of the teams?” So, how do we keep the Court above the political tug-of-war when picking a justice is so political?
It's wild how O’Connor dished on partisanship after hanging up her robe. Easy to pontificate afterwards. Too late to help, or does it still open a door to talk about change? I’d bet 98.9% of Americans haven’t the foggiest who she is much less that she was on the Supreme Court.
Call me a quitter, but I’ve stopped talking to anyone who is Republican. I don’t trust any of those rascals anymore. Childish? You bet.
I watched a video of Obama, speaking about the war between Israel and Hamas yesterday and as he always does in his dignified way. encouraged us to reach across the aisle. Just goes to show you why he was President of the United States and then there’s the rest of us.
I never said you were actually equivocating. Im suggesting that certain news outlets look to create a narrative and we shouldn’t give them the bait. Especially when Trump drops the biased bombs every day by insulting the prosecutors and the judge. Same as his “red line” was finances during Mueller investigation. Trump never used that phrase himself. It was given him by Maggie Haberman and Mike Schmidt. They set up the red line as if “following the money” isn’t exactly how you expose corruption. I just see how it works and It doesn’t matter if you’re “right.” Trump calling a judge bias because they follow the law and our calling a Trump Judge hellbent on handing him a free pass bias… won’t matter if the net result is the opinion that “ALL judges are just biased.”
True Molly. Unfortunately, judicial has been on a path toward favoring the wealthy since at least as far back as at least 2000 (as I recall but perhaps began sooner). Fortunately, we have two good judges in DC and Georgia. The newspapers are generally in Trump's pocket. And if you are into statistics at all (over time); we are trending to a population with a low grade level reading ability on graduation from high school. It was seventh grade reading ability in 2014, now almost ten years later, fourth grade in some Trump red states. That's the reality - they are not on Joyce's substack. They believe Trump (as I write this) that his First Amendment rights (therefore their's) are at stake. That matters a great deal going into the presidential, house and senate elections. Also, in analyzing voting statistics: many of the current MAGA (according to county voting trends) 'probably' had never voted: there was a bump in registration for Trump in 2016. Not simply a 'bump' in voting 'for Trump' but first time registrations in older populations. So they were not Gen Z/Milennial registering to vote for Trump. They were 'never voters.' He captured a 'new' group of Republicans. That's why I say he co-opted the Republican party. And the then-represenatives and senators went along with him to gain these votes in the mid-year elections. Not that they weren't as rotten to the core as Trump, but it is a partial creation. It's hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube. And 'nope' I'm not equivocating. I'm not drinking any koolaid. I am hoping, however, that people recognize Trump for what he is. He is a cult leader. A populist who tapped into a market segment. I hope Jack Smith drives him to prison. And then picks up a head of steam to arrest the House and Senate co-conspirators. Thank you for writing back to clarify. I respect your perspective. A final note: when this is behind us, Biden has won, we have the House and Senate 💙 - we do have work to do to put Civics and Social Studies back in the public school curriculum (missing since NCLB from Bush Junior. And we need to establish preschools (not day care), with master's level teachers for little kids, age 3 to third grade. The point of the early grades is to teach kids how to be part of a community. Never needed more than now. Trump has gathered a group of individuals who have grown up thinking it's fine to take what is not theirs just because they want it and it 'seems' there for the taking. Many blessings to your day Molly!
Wondering silently if Smiths team is quietly collecting data on Judge Cannon and planning to go to the circuit court to look for relief sometime soon.
They could be, but reassigning the case to a new judge, would slow it down, possibly making it impossible to try the case before the election
Unless, perhaps, it was reassigned to a highly competent judge, such as those in charge of several other Trump cases.
Thanks for the clarity. Now I know / understand why you wrote Jack Smith might regret not seeking to recuse Cannon at the start.
She should have recused herself after she made an ass of herself defending Trump and was humiliated by the appellate court for her ostensible incompetence. It's possible that Smith thinks a jury will hear the evidence and convict despite Cannon's shenanigans.
I have a feeling that this is a woman without shame -- like the so-called "man" she is protecting behind her skirts, um, robes.
Sure. She doesn't even bother to try to conceal it, and why should she? She's protected by the entire Republican MAGA party, and maybe she's hoping that she'll be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court someday.
Wouldn't be surprised if someone in Trump's orbit whispered in her ear that exact possibility.
Please, God, NO!!!
Is there another remedy short of reassigning to a new judge? Some oversight mechanism?
Can’t the 11th act to shuffle her out?
The issue is it can get worse.
No. Think of it this way - if there is anything that destroys impartiality, it's a judge who must be babysat or monitored, just as if we had a prosecutor who couldn't be trusted and was assigned a shadow prosecutor to keep them in line.
Not necessarily. But it's less worrisome than if this should happen in any of the other cases against him. I think the documents case was doomed the moment Aileen Cannon was assigned to it. And even if Trump were to be convicted in that case, he isn't likely to go to prison. All we really need is one felony conviction to fulfill the 14th Amendment requirement saying Trump is ineligible to run again.
But she is trying her best to delay it anyways, no?
This case is heading into a dumpster unless and until SC Smith & co. file an appeal at the first opportunity...*Judge* Cannon is just sailing along openly favouring the defense, ignoring points of law as well as federal rules governing trials, and just generally dragging the procedures down to amateur-hour status...shameful conduct by a federal judge in a case of this magnitude.
But is an appeal from Jack Smith still possible?
Still? Truth is the judge hasnt yet done anything significant that's appealable.
But be patient.
She will.
True Gordon, she will overstep on the same level as her past behavior: advising Trump's attorneys to rewrite their brief. The Eleventh had a hissy over that.
It's eating time though... which helps tfg.
And it's always nitpicking.
Early on in the case I read somewhere that a request for her to recuse can happen anytime before a jury is seated. I’ll see if I can find that info.
I couldn’t find the exact info I was looking for, but I did find this Vox article. It’s quite detailed and specifically addresses Cannon, 11th Circuit judges, the screw up that got her smacked down, and refusals.
https://www.vox.com/2023/6/13/23757893/aileen-cannon-donald-trump-jack-smith-indictment-mar-a-lago-maga
You have to have an appealable issue. There's nothing to appeal at this point. You can't bring an appeal over a clearly biased order like this, but you can use it as evidence in a later appeal.
That is the question since Joyce has implied that the opportunity to recuse J Cannon has passed?
Yes, I would like to understand from Joyce why the time has passed for a motion to recuse
Recuse is something she should have done. Appeal is something that is done to her. So there is time to appeal and as Michele Desoer points to: one needs to have something to appeal. She's going to overstep. Then Jack Smith will take that to the 11th Circuit Court and as Michele says, this bonehead maneuver can be used as evidence.
A motion for recusal can be filed at any time.
The silence from Smith’s team could indeed be the prelude to a strategic move. If they're gathering intel on Judge Cannon, it could signal an intent to appeal to the circuit court. It's a classic chess maneuver—quietly positioning your pieces before a pivotal play. Keep an eye on this; it may unfold into a significant legal gambit.
Let's hope this is the case!!!!
The only problem is that I'm not sure what they can appeal at this point. Not every order is appealable.
My thought also.
One can only hope so
Now would be a good time
No surprise here.
I have wondered the same thing!
We can at least hope so...
That’s my hope as well.
Joyce Vance has taken Judge Aileen Cannon to task in the most legal of ways. Rarely, if ever, do we have the opportunity to learn the scope of a judge's knowledge and responsibilities when making rulings. Thank you for this expert lesson about the judiciary, as expressed in 'Judge Cannon's Response.
WOW! Judge Cannon is certainly showing where her loyalty lies. And it isn’t with the law and the people of this country. I wonder if she takes vacations with Clarence Thomas.
More like Harlen Crow - Thomas doesn’t pay for his own vacations. And what I think is notable is that hers is the only court NOT getting bombarded with threats of harm, OR, she succumbed to them. But the bottom line remains, Trump is banking on the fact that he has no standards and the prosecutors are forced to tap dance for this amateur judge.
🤣
Or worse
Hysterical (and prophetic)!
I agree ... Thank You..
😹
She is far from impartial. It has been evident from the outset that she is biased and unfit to sit on the bench. The filing was 19 words over this ridiculous 200 word maximum.
Jack Smith should consider going to the 11th Circuit. This faux judge can’t be allowed to keep hearing this case.
Judge Cannon might be counting on becoming a Justice of the Supreme Court if Trump or another Republican is elected president. A sweet lifetime appointment for which she is not qualified.
She is already grifting the American people by having a lifetime appointment. If she ever gets nominated for a higher position, DC Appellate or SC, the Democrats must block her nomination.
Maybe Senator Football will hold up the Supreme appointment. Yeh, sure. I guess that's for other folks.
No, he's just doing this with the military so that there won't be anyone at the top, and then the orange sadist can follow Project 2025 and choose who he wants for his own private military. TERRIFYING!
Nailed it!!! Implementation of the McConnell strategy.
Hi kdsherpa, Your fear hinges on Trump being elected. Our focus is on electing Blue and trying to strengthen our democracy. We have holes we can drive a truck through because of the partisan court decisions and the appointment to judgeships that have been so overtly favoring to the wealthy. Trump is going to have the shine taken off of him after his NY fraud trial strips him of his ill-gotten gain. The MAGA cultists who were enchanted with who he pretended to be will have a bit of reality therapy. Folks like Tommy Tuberville will never change. But we can push for individual appointments, even if it takes 700 hours and the senate has to work through some holidays. They are already tired of him. He was blasted from the senate floor last week: not sure how many senators disparaged him, but a number.
PLEASE: LET THIS BE HOW THINGS GO!!!
💙
Agree.
But, if it happens, hardly Trump's only unqualified appointment. Or Leonard Leo's only unqualified recommendation.
But she would, alas, not be the only unsuitable and unqualified --
Promises, promises. She will do his bidding and he will dump her.
That's how all autocrats operate, but their minions don't catch on til it's too late. Great examples in the new New Yorker article about China; ditto Russia, of course - a master class in treachery.
Indeed LaurieOregon, All autocrats, as in Russia (Trump's buddy Putin) having a lot of failing balcony rails and unexplained doses of poison; Trump's buddy Thaci in Kosovo, harvesting and selling body parts of his past political opponents/innocent civilians; thousands of murders of political opponents of Duterte (another dictator and Trump buddy in the Phillipines); Trump has stated that he 'gets along with dictators.' I actually was thinking of Noriega in Panama. He was 'our crook' until he wasn't...so in true fashion: she will be 'Trump's judge' until she isn't. I think one of the most valuable lessons I have learned was from a senior senator who is now retired (and deceased). I was troubled over theft of hard earned funds for a humane society. He said: "Just wait a while. Things always change." I did, a corrupt city manager was fired, we embarrassed the city over theft, we tripled the fundraising amount and built the shelter that had been threatened. And the city paid for the management. But I see that on this website today: people are anxious over Jack Smith, and trying to second-guess him. He has a plan A, a plan B and a plan C. He has put corrupt former presidents in jail at The Hague (one a friend of Trump btw). So I think we should settle down and send him (and Fani) our positive energy. Jack brought Alex Whiting, his buddy from The Hague, on board to help with these kinds of issues. Trump is on the run.
Kumbayah!
Jack knows what he is doing.
Thanks Valere for your reminder of the competence and savvy of those fighting for what is decent.
Eeek
GOD FORBID!!!!!
kdsherpa, God will forbid. We need to stay together and get the Blue vote for the House, Senate and Biden. Then we need to work locally to bring back Civics instruction to public schools.
Civics class is exactly what’s needed. Glad you said it. Thanks.
Linda, No Child Left Behind was one of the worst education decisions in more than 200 years: and based on false information that we need to conform to a 'drill, repeat, and test' pedagogy in public schools - when every elite private school in the nation knew that was a roadmap to failure. Bring back civics and social studies and stop retaining little kids in kindergarten and first grade because 'they do not read at grade-level.' Their job in all the early childhood grades (including preschool) is to learn to be part of a community. They will ALL read when they are ready - but they can never recover from losing their first cohort/community. We can see exactly who (in the Legislature and as a former president) did not have a good preschool education - either in a school setting or at home. And I'm not talking about day care. I'm talking about an NAYEC kind of preschool education. One that teaches little kids that they can't whomp the other kid to take their cookie and they can't bite or grab or pinch to steal it either. If they do, they have some time out. Trump never went past Stage 1 in Kohlberg's six stages of moral development: blind egoism, he only recognizes his own needs.
I had the good fortune of attending the initial eight grades of school in Ohio, where the educational framework was based on the Amherst Classification of Individualized Learning. Subjects such as civics, social studies, history, and Latin were all mandatory parts of the curriculum.
You are so fortunate. I as well had a ‘college prep’ curriculum back in the day. I also took Latin and two other languages. But my real life civics lessons were my parents’ involvement in League of Women Voters and leading the charge at the PTA. Voting, jury duty - the whole nine yards -
This former Social Studies teacher agrees.
Thank you Charlie. And how horrific NCLB was and has been for you to experience as a teacher. I say frequently that we 'have our work cut out for us' when Biden wins. We cannot sit back and happy dance: we need to reform curricula to include civics, social studies, history for all. Do you have a substack? Perhaps you could lead the charge that way. Not that I'm trying to volunteer you for the board of a League of Women Voters or anything, but 'kind of.'
What does “qualification” have to do with it?
Like a few of the other Justices
Seems like qualifications for the Supreme Court have taken a dive lately.
In not seeking Cannon's recusal before proceedings began, what was Jack Smith thinking -- that somehow "optics" matter? No, for the Trumpists it's all abuse of power and disregard for the law and the Constitution. To paraphrase Maya Angelou: "When fascists show you who they are, believe them the first time."
Eric, He was thinking that if he asked for change of venue he might lose because most of the document taking activity occurred at Mara Lardo; and changing venu would take precious time that he did not want to take with an election coming; he drew one of four judges in an eligible pool (minus the senior judge) in the district; he hoped she would recuse herself (she did not) and he did not want to take up time with an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court. The bad luck of the draw fell with her: inexperienced and biased.
Thanks for the explanation. I continue to struggle with what we see so frequently, huge and glaring differences between verified reality and what takes place in court proceedings. Why do things we know to be true, with our own eyes, get lost once legal processes get underway?
A predictable outcome to the former president's efforts to make the judiciary as partisan and favorable to him as possible.
It’s actually amazing how often “his”judges ruled against him on the election cases.
True. Hoping the appellate court can ultimately force the recusal of the absurdly "Aileen-toward-tRump" Cannon.
Joyce, you wrote: "Perhaps she wants to avoid displeasing people whose support she thinks she may need in the future." Bingo. I suspect the support she expects to seek isn't just in the voting booth or the halls of the Federalist Society.
When will the 11th District step in and reprimand her for clearly not knowing her job and being biased towards Trump?
The Appellate is not likely to step in unless there is a way to appeal this to them. I don’t see anything appealable here, but it certainly is another piece of the argument they may eventually be able to make to the appellate court.
Help us understand why Cannon’s response does not fit into a pattern of bias? And thus, taken together with the Special Master debacle, why this piece of writing isn’t evidence I’d bias sufficient to appeal? Surely the 11th C. Court is watching intently.
... evidence of bias
Carol, Michele Dosoer (writing above) is an attorney and explained that this bonehead maneuver (my term) is not egregious enough on which to make an appeal. But at the time Cannon does overstep (she will), this can be used as evidence for Jack Smith to appeal. Cannon may do something extreme such as acquittal at the end.
It is still unclear to me - given Cannon’s egregious baseless legal retort to DOJ and the stunning smack down delivered by the 11th. C. Court in the Special Master debacle - why the cumulative weight of Cannon’s judgment errors (or indifference to or ignorance of fine points of law) and imperious, fitful temperament would not justify her speedy removal. If the hesitation is fear of delaying the trial until after the election, Cannon’s handling of motions thus far suggests, if not demonstrates, that she will push the trial as far as possible regardless. I think waiting for an acquittal is a bigger gamble. Just about any communication/motion/response filed by Jay Bratt or Jack Smith seems to spark her ire. Perhaps they could devise something to send her over the edge and then appeal for recusal.
Kimberly, they need Jack Smith to make the appeal.
I don’t understand why the prosecutors haven’t asked for her removal. Her bias and snark are evident. She is a stain on the judicial system.
Unfortunately, our judicial system is badly stained, look at our "Supreme Court", corruption of several members, first and foremost Clarence Thomas.
And rump is proud of controlling the executive, legislative, AND judicial branches of the government. Anyone read Rachel Maddow's new book _Prequel_ about the nazis in Germany funding propaganda sent FREE from Congressional offices by official frank? We really need to learn from the 1920s and 30s' Nazi movement and organizations in this country, well-supported by German government funds.
AMEN. In fact this is the time everyone should be reviewing everything about the rise of Nazis.
Too true.
Is it too late to ask for a different judge?
Is it??
No.
It's too early.
Some of the despair I observe herein today has the appearance of relationship to the electoral cycle, i.e., a need to perceive something happening ahead of 11/24.
That's not what this is about, nor should it be.
SC Smith's executing his job virtually perfectly.
Our job (which I'm not sure we're executing optimally, since it mostly doesn't comprise online activity 😏) is to vote and get out the vote.
Try to be at peace.
Thank you Gordon. If we do get out the vote, all the angst will be moot. And no matter the antics and delays Cannon takes, Trump's convictions will not be pardoned.
Is there any, even remotely possible, way to remove her from this case?
Not yet!
I had suggested that it would be worth the sturm und drang to get Trump convicted before this judge, in a part of the district that voted for him. I may have been wrong. It may well be time for the special prosecutor to turn to the 11th Circuit--or at least the chief judge of the district--about re-assigning the matter.
Me thinks Smith made a bad tactical and strategic blunder filing the docs case in a judicial district that Judge Cannon lurks in.
Not sure he had a choice, at least as a practical matter. If he had filed in DC (presumably, Trump first got the documents in the White House, although maybe not, he would have had to show how how they got to Mar a Lago.
Joyce, is it too late for them to try and get her removed from this case?
Trump will never go to trial in Florida.
Judge Cannon is steering the Trump legal saga into uncharted territory, and not in the way that one might expect from a federal judge. The unfolding events in her courtroom are more than just legal maneuvers; they are a clear sign that Trump may successfully skirt a trial with Cannon at the helm.
Right out of the gate, Cannon's approach to Trump's defense team screams of a favoritism that's troubling to anyone expecting a fair legal process. She's doling out extensions and delays like candy at a parade, constructing a protective bubble around Trump that could very well ensure he never stands trial.
When you stack up her actions against her past as an appellate litigator, the picture gets even more jarring. Cannon's willingness to jump on the prosecution for a 200-word breach of conduct, while mum on Trump's team playing hide-and-seek with their motions in D.C., is a staggering display of judicial imbalance.
This isn't just a story about legal filings and courtroom spats—it's a narrative about a judge whose courtroom demeanor and decisions don't align with the gravity of a case involving a former President. The tug-of-war with the Special Counsel’s office, the bias in favor of Trump—it all adds up to a case stalled before it can even start.
Looking back at Cannon's previous rulings that didn't pass muster with the 11th Circuit, it's not just a pattern; it's a predictor. It suggests that her current trajectory in handling Trump's case isn't just a deviation from norms—it's a potential collision course with judicial review and questions about her fitness to preside over this case.
And let’s talk about second chances. The Special Counsel's office must be kicking themselves for not pushing for Cannon's recusal from the get-go. It was a misstep that might have rerouted this whole legal drama to a place where a trial was a possibility.
Putting it all together, what you get isn't just partiality; it's a judicial blockade. Under Judge Cannon's watch, it seems Trump’s day in court may be just a mirage, challenging the bedrock principle that justice is blind—that in America, no one is above the law.
Hello dear friend Gloria, Your thesis hinges on Trump being elected in 2024. Otherwise, no matter the delay, the case will go to trial and be heard by a jury - who will have been informed by the serious defeat he will suffer in his New York business fraud case; the January 15, 2024 reminder (again in New York) that he is a convicted rapist who must pay the amount determined by that jury; Stormy Daniels case is hovering; Jack Smith has a powerful case in DC to show Florida document jurers that don-Don attempted to steal their votes; and finally they will have seen his some of his co-conspirators testify against him right up the road in Georgia [it's not over until the fat lady sings in Georgia, and Fani Willis may have more than four co-conspirators lined up to plea deal]. My view is that he is not going to be re-elected. In the meantime, Cannon can rule for aquital or call for a mistrial and Jack Smith would then appeal. My prayer is that she does something extremely egregious that would be as bad as her other two trips to the Eleventh Circuit and they would rule on it; and I'm not sure Jack Smith's next option, but perhaps an immediate request for her to be canned from the Trump document case. (I suggested earlier that she had advance notice that Trump was going to ask DC for an extension to his trial date). Where is our intelligence community when we need them? Everything she has done thus far smacks of her being in the waterbed with the other side - whenever they move. She is indeed 'in the tank' and a little bit too involved in their having a positive outcome.
Lordy, Woman! You are brilliant!
You must post this in a note with this Substack.
Beware. I’m going to start asking you questions, a lot of questions and not all of them are going to be about politics.
I’m intrigued by you.
Then it's settled: You are going to write that book!
I deleted my first reply because it was gibberish. I’ll give serious thought to a book.
I think you should write. You’ve already written the story. There is huge power in vulnerability.
Ok - I will have Queen E Jean dm you with my contact info.
Understood! I'll keep an eye on my inbox for Queen E Jean's missive with all the glee of a little kid at Christmas. 🎁
He's not a convicted rapist, unfortunately. I know it's semantics, but he wasn't convicted of that in the EJC case.
Yes he was convicted. The jury found him guilty of sexually abusing E. Jean. She went on television that night with Robbie and during the interview, she said “he raped me.” The next day Trump was in court with the same judge, requesting the judge vacate the charges - because, Trump said “I was found not guilty of rape.” The judge then said:
“You raped her.“ The judge went on to explain to Trump, that the reason the jury found him “guilty of sexual abuse”was because the statute was so narrow in New York, that they couldn’t find rape. But the judge said “you raped her.“ And that is in the Washington post. so we can say publicly that he is a rapist because the Washington Post and I believe New York Times published those statements. It was said in a public courtroom, and it was published. I’m walking my dogs right now and it’s getting dark. However, as soon as I’m back, I’ll send that link to you so you can read it for yourself. I have used the term ‘he a rapist ’many times on this website. So have others. If you have a Washington Post subscription, you can pull it up but I’ll do it when I get back. The judge also said that on January 15, when she goes back to trial, the only thing the jury will need to do is determine how much Trump needs to pay her. That pretty much ended Trump’s insistence that he didn’t rape E. Jean. Whatever he wants to portray, the judge has publicly stated: You. Raped. Her.
I know what was said by the judge, the news, and EJC, and I agree 100%, but that is not what he was held accountable for. And it wasn't a criminal case.
“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.
He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”
The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”
So, Judge Kaplan states that the jury found him guilty of rape: "...the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
So by this statement, Judge Kaplan clarified that the jury found Trump guilty of rape in a court of law. No semantics there. But you are correct that it was not in a 'criminal court of law.' The civil conviction allows her to collect damages on January 15, 2024. I hope it is a lot of money. I know she was awarded $5 Million. But the jury will have a chance to award more on January 15, 2024. She was damaged. He is a jerk and a convicted rapist.
Erika, I don’t mean to get in an argument over ‘semantics’ (your term) because this is not a question of semantics at all.
I called Trump a convicted rapist, and if you want to press the point that the jury couldn’t convict and rape because the statute was too narrow, I will agree with you. He’s a rapist and I will continue to call him that at every opportunity. I’ll still send the Washington Post link for you when I return from my walk. And when the jury meets on January 15, 2024, the award they give will most likely be based on the fact that Trump raped her.
Also, it’s interesting to me, that he still tried to substitute the conflict the day after he was found guilty by trying to portray that he was not a rapist.
My history is empty on this. Has country ever gone after a fed judge?
"Only Congress has the authority to remove an Article III judge. This is done through a vote of impeachment by the House and a trial and conviction by the Senate. As of September 2017, only 15 federal judges have been impeached, and only eight have been convicted. Found at: US Courts.gov." So yes. We need to win the House and Senate and of course elect Biden and press for her impeachment.
That needs to be a very early order of business!
Indeed. We need to petition our representatives.
With any luck at all, mine (AL-05) wouldn’t survive 2024; he’s so deep in trump’s pocket he has to suck air from a straw. But AL is so red and gerrymandered, he has little to fear from some damn democrat.
Let's give him (AL-05) trouble anyway.
How can we trust the court with such inexperienced, biased people making decisions? Self-preservation is not the job of a judge. Applying the law fairly without any form of prejudice, is expected. This makes a sham of the system. No wonder there is no "common good" among us! What are our young people going to do with this example. <sigh>
Julie, We have had inexperienced biased people making decisions on the Supreme Court for decades. Clarence Thomas sat on the DC Court of Appeals for 19 months before Bush Senior nominated him to the Supreme Court to replace Thurgood Marshall. Nineteen months on the job experience in appeals does not qualify one for SCOTUS. He was and is incompetent.
Personally, I think we should pick another word. Don’t fall for the equivocation by using biased. I believe that’s exactly what Fox News wants the narrative to be. Their viewers are so simple and disengaged and easily conclude “all <insert here> are the same.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Note that Hunter Biden is charged with an unloaded fire arms while a week ago the entire county where Lewiston sits was under lockdown tracking a mass shooter and Trump is facing 91 indictments. Judge Cannon is abusing her power and the law for her own reasons as a means to delay. No one is innocent who would go to the ends of the earth for delay. And there is a big difference between a life-appointment and the lawful constitutional right for investigative reporting. Point is, We shouldn’t just scream bias and maybe start asking the question of has anyone bought her Mother a house lately? Pick up some acreage for lucrative profit? Because who delays a trial for a man accused of mishandling and sharing state secrets and then shield’s the gov’t from finding the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Hi Molly, I’m open to your suggesting any word to use other than ‘biased’ so long as it describes: “One who makes legal decisions that favor the guy who appointed one to a judgeship.” If Fox News is upsetting to you, I suggest you turn it off. Who cares ? I have no clue about them hopping up and down about my using the term ‘bias.’. None of my sources have news that is regurgitated by mainstream ‘personalities’ who can hardly be called journalists or put two cogent thoughts together. I’ve been called lots of things, but being equivocating is not one of them. I usually pretty much know exactly where I stand. I am not equivocating about Cannon or Clarence Thomas. I think they are both biased, and they are and were both less than qualified when they were appointed to their judgeships. Cannon’s case involves unauthorized Top Secret documents that were allegedly taken by an ex-president by whom she was appointed to her judgeship. I’m not the definitive source for who is and who isn’t experienced or thought to be biased, but you can Google to read the opinions of numerous well credentialed legal experts who have expressed concerns about Cannon. One called her ‘Jack Smith’s worst nightmare.’ That was before Cannon had spent one minute on the case. So far as her bias, you only need to pull the records of the 11th circuit court, who have twice reprimanded her for bias. If Fox is upset over Cannon’s being called biased they can do two things: they can take it up with the 11th circuit court and they can call Cannon on the phone and tell her to quit being biased.
No one on this site has suggested that Cannon has accepted a house for her mother or ‘picked up some lucrative property.’ We do not need to allow Fox News to substitute the conflict.
The conflict is that the ex President of the United States, took Too Secret documents from the White House in Washington DC without having authorization (see the letter from the acting Director of the national archives, May 8, 2021).
Re Thomas, we assume decision making is made by justices with integrity. And we don’t think one is an Integritist if he sits on the court making decisions on a case involving donors from whom he has accepted gifts. And it is worse when we learn that a Justice hasn’t reported gifts. We wonder if he’s sneaking around. Where our assumption comes in, is the way we have historically known justices. Thurgood Marshall comes to mind and Ruth Ginsberg comes to mind. We’ve never heard of them sneaking around. We do accept that they are conservative or liberal but the standard is that they recused themselves from cases that involved self interest. In the case of Thomas, because he did not disclose his gifts from the donor, he couldn’t very well recuse himself from the case(s) when they came before him, without admitting he had received undisclosed gifts. So that tarnishes our idea of him being able to make unbiased decisions. He had 19 months experience on the Washington DC appeals court, and had worked as an attorney at the department of education when he was nominated to a position on the highest court in the United States. By the time you get to be a federal judge or a Supreme Court justice, you’re supposed to have experience to bring to the job. You’re not supposed to learn on the job. But you wanted to talk about not using the term ‘bias.’ What are you going to suggest for a term describing these kinds of behaviors by a justice making decisions that impact our democracy while the Justice decides (three times thus far, and she’s been reprimanded twice by the 11th circuit court) in favor of the alleged criminal who has given the appointments?
Cannon is biased and she needs to be booted. She does not have enough experience for a case involving top-secret documents improperly held by the man who appointed her to her position. Does it sound to you that I am equivocating about whether I think Cannon is biased and inexperienced or whether I care about ‘Fox News’ opinion? I didn’t even know they had an opinion about my bias. It’s not my place to tell you what news station you should listen to. But if you’re looking for an unbiased news source, I could suggest a couple of sources besides Fox News.
To my Muse,
This is one of the most informative, best-written, and understandable posts I've ever read on the subjects of judicial bias, qualifications, and the role of judges and justices. Your detailed analysis and clear explanations make complex topics much more accessible and thought-provoking.
I had an absolute blast diving into your post at the ungodly hour of 6:40 AM in my neck of the woods!
Your posts have always been like hidden gems of wisdom, but this one takes the cake. It's like the Mona Lisa of online discussions, but in words. You've turned the labyrinth of judicial bias and qualifications into a well-lit, neon sign-guided path at the Las Vegas Neon Museum, making it feel as easy to navigate as a kiddie pool.
And let's not forget the nostalgia trip! Your insights took me back to the swinging 60s of civics classes. a time when dinosaurs ruled the land, and we all donned pieces of fur to stay stylish. Thanks for the enlightening journey through time and thought-provoking discourse.
Hi Musette,
There are actually constitutional law attorneys on this site and this is their area. I’m not an attorney and I’m not a legal scholar. I’m just wading in from the context of someone who thought from childhood that the SCOTUS justices were impeccable. I’m happy to be corrected by anyone, but the shine was off for me when George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, who didn’t have an ounce of experience. That’s even setting aside the strong testimony of Anita Hill (whom I believed absolutely).
The nomination was probably unfair to Clarence Thomas as he wasn’t qualified and because it truly is a place where you cannot learn on the job. He just didn’t have the character to refuse the nomination. I think one needs some experience. You don’t get court experience sitting at the department of education. I thought the court’s decision during Bush v. Gore was partisan. And I was terribly disappointed. That was when the varnish came off for me, and I wanted to move to Japan. I just wanted to leave a country that had so disappointed me. My department chair talked me out of doing so. When SCOTUS remanded that to Florida’s Supreme Court, I thought we had lost our democracy and lost checks and balances. Why even have a supreme court if they’re going to be making partisan decisions?’ I thought Sandra Day O’Connor made a partisan decision on Bush v. Gore and that disappointed me. After she retired, she spoke about the trend of courts becoming partisan. For me that was ‘too little too late.’ I don’t think it hurts to be aware of history and its trends. But we’re talking about today’s problem, not the history of the Court. Joyce is very clear about the character and quality of Cannon. And our big job remains to stay on point and throw everything we have behind Biden. The current threat to our democracy is extreme and real.
There are trolls on this site and no matter how they try to couch their MAGA views with questions, the fact that they want to drag Fox News opinions into anything is my high alert. Even though I should just respond “Oh, please,” I try to be kind. I should quickly slap them away like others do. Anyone who is (seriously) listening to Fox News isn’t going to pay any attention to anything I have to say:)
Bonjour, ma professeure,
It’s quite a thought, isn’t it, that back when the Constitution was penned, they didn’t really spell out what makes someone Supreme Court material? Kind of left us with a mixed bag of justices over the years. It's like, what's the secret sauce for a justice? Legal smarts, life experience, a steady moral compass?
The Grifter, otherwise known as Clarence Thomas — his nomination definitely shook things up. Got any thoughts on the must-haves for a justice's resume?
And Bush v. Gore — wow, did that case throw us for a loop. It's like watching a soccer match and thinking, “Are the referees playing for one of the teams?” So, how do we keep the Court above the political tug-of-war when picking a justice is so political?
It's wild how O’Connor dished on partisanship after hanging up her robe. Easy to pontificate afterwards. Too late to help, or does it still open a door to talk about change? I’d bet 98.9% of Americans haven’t the foggiest who she is much less that she was on the Supreme Court.
Call me a quitter, but I’ve stopped talking to anyone who is Republican. I don’t trust any of those rascals anymore. Childish? You bet.
I watched a video of Obama, speaking about the war between Israel and Hamas yesterday and as he always does in his dignified way. encouraged us to reach across the aisle. Just goes to show you why he was President of the United States and then there’s the rest of us.
I never said you were actually equivocating. Im suggesting that certain news outlets look to create a narrative and we shouldn’t give them the bait. Especially when Trump drops the biased bombs every day by insulting the prosecutors and the judge. Same as his “red line” was finances during Mueller investigation. Trump never used that phrase himself. It was given him by Maggie Haberman and Mike Schmidt. They set up the red line as if “following the money” isn’t exactly how you expose corruption. I just see how it works and It doesn’t matter if you’re “right.” Trump calling a judge bias because they follow the law and our calling a Trump Judge hellbent on handing him a free pass bias… won’t matter if the net result is the opinion that “ALL judges are just biased.”
True Molly. Unfortunately, judicial has been on a path toward favoring the wealthy since at least as far back as at least 2000 (as I recall but perhaps began sooner). Fortunately, we have two good judges in DC and Georgia. The newspapers are generally in Trump's pocket. And if you are into statistics at all (over time); we are trending to a population with a low grade level reading ability on graduation from high school. It was seventh grade reading ability in 2014, now almost ten years later, fourth grade in some Trump red states. That's the reality - they are not on Joyce's substack. They believe Trump (as I write this) that his First Amendment rights (therefore their's) are at stake. That matters a great deal going into the presidential, house and senate elections. Also, in analyzing voting statistics: many of the current MAGA (according to county voting trends) 'probably' had never voted: there was a bump in registration for Trump in 2016. Not simply a 'bump' in voting 'for Trump' but first time registrations in older populations. So they were not Gen Z/Milennial registering to vote for Trump. They were 'never voters.' He captured a 'new' group of Republicans. That's why I say he co-opted the Republican party. And the then-represenatives and senators went along with him to gain these votes in the mid-year elections. Not that they weren't as rotten to the core as Trump, but it is a partial creation. It's hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube. And 'nope' I'm not equivocating. I'm not drinking any koolaid. I am hoping, however, that people recognize Trump for what he is. He is a cult leader. A populist who tapped into a market segment. I hope Jack Smith drives him to prison. And then picks up a head of steam to arrest the House and Senate co-conspirators. Thank you for writing back to clarify. I respect your perspective. A final note: when this is behind us, Biden has won, we have the House and Senate 💙 - we do have work to do to put Civics and Social Studies back in the public school curriculum (missing since NCLB from Bush Junior. And we need to establish preschools (not day care), with master's level teachers for little kids, age 3 to third grade. The point of the early grades is to teach kids how to be part of a community. Never needed more than now. Trump has gathered a group of individuals who have grown up thinking it's fine to take what is not theirs just because they want it and it 'seems' there for the taking. Many blessings to your day Molly!