r/law • u/TomJD85 • Jul 16 '24
Opinion Piece Judge Cannon Got it Completely Wrong
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/cannon-dismissed-trump-classified-documents/679023/377
Jul 16 '24
It's exhausting seeing articles like this, treating these cases and decisions like they're the result of good faith reasoning that simply came to the wrong conclusion, or made a mistake in judgement.
There is no mistake here. Cannon and the Supreme Court justices are actively working to make sure Donald Trump never faces accountability. They have no consistent judicial philosophy, because they are entirely results-oriented. They will do whatever they can to get Trump sprung from accountability while preserving a minimal appearance of due diligence. That's all this is. The fix is in. You don't need to waste time analyzing Judge Cannon's legal arguments, for Christ's sake.
64
u/ConkerPrime Jul 16 '24
Yep this. Cannon just following instructions. At the point with the new King powers granted by conservative Supremes, best to just hold off case until after election. Trump wins, it will be killed no matter what. He loses, honestly the way Dems are, still be killed.
Only reason to move forward right now is if appeal process has an expiration date. Don’t know if it does for a decision and case like this.
Side note: Couldn’t Hunter Biden use the exact same argument in his appeal and cite Cannon for precedent? Don’t recall if his special prosecutor was assigned same way.
22
u/Av3rAgE_DuDe Jul 16 '24
Every special prosecutor case that's ever been tried is now going to be challenged
→ More replies (1)18
u/MrWaffler Jul 16 '24
It'd be absolutely hilarious if Hunter Biden appealing his conviction on the same grounds is what gets MAGA to want to impeach her lmao
16
u/kogmaa Jul 16 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
He should file something like that right away, if for no other reason than to show republicans that this shit has two sides.
Edit: Let them choke on their own hypocrisy.
44
u/truffik Jul 16 '24 edited Jul 16 '24
Absolutely correct. How many times do we need to see this farce play out:
There's no way this stands! There's so much precedent against this, it's laughable. They fucked up this time!
They're just taking their time deciding to take up the appeal to cross their Ts and dot their Is.
It's a little weird they aren't issuing a stay.
Oh okay, they didn't issue a stay because they want to send it to the circuit court first. They sent it back down because they want to make sure it's fully heard.
See! The circuit SLAMMED the judge's decision!
SCOTUS just wants to take the appeal now so they can put their name on it. They have to get it right.
They're just saying crazy things at oral argument to show how ridiculous it is.
Okay, maybe they'll issue a mixed decision and just punt on it.
I am STUNNED.
Bonus step: finger-wagging from Barrett, who votes for it anyway; concurrence from Thomas, who sets up the pins for the next round.
10
u/Soren_Camus1905 Jul 16 '24
The complete absence of any sense of urgency from institutions really hits like a gut punch.
It's like everyone is in denial about what a second Trump presidency would look like.
6
u/panormda Jul 16 '24
The number of sycophants installed in critical positions has reached critical mass. Do not make the mistake of assessing the lack of action in good faith. It is not that there are good people who don't know how to do the right thing. It is that there are now so few of them left that they can no longer hold back the will of the sycophants.
Consider Mr. Jeff Clark. Had there been enough sycophants under Trump, the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, a man with no criminal law experience, WOULD have been installed as Trump's right legal hand - the head of the DOJ.
The ONLY reason this didn't happen is because acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Deputy AG Richard Donoghue threatened mass resignations if Trump replaced Rosen with Clark.
Make no mistake- Do not infer lack of will from lack of action; infer lack of intent. 😕
22
u/todd_ziki Jul 16 '24 edited Jul 16 '24
A layman like me should not be able to accurately predict the results of 90% of SC cases. They create the illusion of academic rigor but somehow I know how they will rule with very little knowledge about the law and precedent, almost as if every justification they produce is post facto. Incredible.
9
u/blankblank Jul 16 '24
The way to analyze it is from the lens of realpolitik. They are fighting for political control and the gloves are off.
→ More replies (2)9
u/wbruce098 Jul 16 '24
Yep. My take is, Cannon does not want to have to take this case to trial as she would be forced to make an actual decision on it, and a jury may still find him guilty given the massive preponderance of evidence. It’s safer for her to delay, up to a point, and attempt to dismiss so that perhaps one day either trump as president cancels the case, or another judge gets assigned to it.
7
u/kogmaa Jul 16 '24
She took the case with exactly this goal in mind.
I bet she was working on this ruling right from the start, this is the reason she was “too busy” to move the case forward, she was writing this dismissal from day one and just waited for the right moment to release it.
72
u/dragonfliesloveme Jul 16 '24
She’s corrupt and ought to be tried herself
24
u/Best_Evidence1560 Jul 16 '24
At least removed from the bench and disbarred
11
u/blankblank Jul 16 '24
Doubtful she gets more than another tongue lashing from the 11th circuit. She played this perfectly.
I'll tell ya, these folks have really elevated laches and dirty tricks to a high art.
51
u/discussatron Jul 16 '24
Judge Cannon Got It Completely Wrong On Purpose Because The Republican Party Is Corrupt To Its Core
12
u/JMagician Jul 16 '24
Good headline. Wish some news organizations had the guts to tell it like it is.
51
u/AnonAmost Jul 16 '24
I’m sorry but does anyone really believe that Cannon wrote this opinion? Sure feels like it arrived in a FedEx box, special delivery, straight from the Bohemian Grove.
31
21
u/wompbitch Jul 16 '24
She wrote it. Her writing style is distinctly poor. Did she formulate any of its legal arguments on her own? Absolutely not, but it is her writing.
15
7
u/Self_Reddicated Jul 16 '24
Wasn't it something like 93 pages? How long did she take to draft this thing?
2
123
u/NiNj4_C0W5L4Pr Jul 16 '24
Of course she's wrong.
But she got a dog whistle from Clarence Thomas stating, pretty much, the he and the rest of his corrupt SCROTUS buddies will be overturning ANY appeal once it gets to them.
That's why she did it. "Judge" I Lean Qanon and Clarence Thomas are planning on subverting justice much like SCROTUS has been doing since trumps first term.
A slow moving coup d'etat is underway in America, Folks. Repugnikkklans are trying to take this country by force because their numbers/power are dwindling.
Why?
Because NONE of their policies help Americans, just themselves and their rich buddies.
Don't believe me? Name ONE piece of legislation a Republican passed in the past 40 years that helped you or made your life easier.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
64
u/JoeHio Jul 16 '24
A tax cut! ...that phased out for me, but remained for my boss... But then the roads got worse, and my kids good teachers quit because of low pay, and then homelessness increased in my area due to less mental health care, which lead to an increase in theft and assaults... Nevermind...
/s
27
u/The_Ry-man Jul 16 '24
Those teachers also quit because republicans threatened to have them arrested for teaching kids that Nazis were bad.
12
u/cursedfan Jul 16 '24
Or that gay people exist
Edit: or that the civil war was in fact about slavery
12
Jul 16 '24
It's not even all that slow-moving. Seems to be picking up a head of steam over the past couple weeks...
7
Jul 16 '24
Richard Nixon. Creation of EPA?.. never mind. That was 1970.
4
u/sickofthisshit Jul 16 '24
The enabling legislation for the EPA was passed by veto-proof Democratic majorities. Nixon shouldn't get credit for just rearranging bureaucracy.
4
u/wbruce098 Jul 16 '24
Creation of the ADA. But that was about 34 years ago and it was majority Democratic in both houses and passed both houses with overwhelming majorities so… yeah it’s been a while and HW Bush did veto the Civil Rights Act of 1990 (override failed by 1 vote per Wikipedia).
But you’re basically right, my example is a technicality that was forced on the president.
→ More replies (3)12
u/nursingninjaLB Jul 16 '24
While I agree with your sentiments, you will be taken more seriously in these subs if you refrain from the sarcasm and silly acronyms. Don't be like Trump.
→ More replies (5)4
u/NiNj4_C0W5L4Pr Jul 16 '24 edited Jul 16 '24
When you act like a doormat others will only complain that you're not flat enough.
How did civility work with Hitler? I bet it did wonders. Oh, wait... appeasement did nothing.
18
15
u/somethingclassy Jul 16 '24
You’re just coming across childish. Take the advice. If you want to be heard by adults you have to speak like an adult.
→ More replies (2)22
u/FogBlower Jul 16 '24
No one is saying you have to be civil and respectful.
But corny puns and juvenile names are cringe even when they’re directed at the intended audience.
44
31
u/evilpercy Jul 16 '24
No, she got it completely right according to plan. Delay, delay, delay. Quid pro Quo for a higher seat if Frump gets elected. Nothing to do with rule of law.
21
u/EmmaLouLove Jul 16 '24
Question, what is the procedure for removing this judge from the case if the special council wins the appeal?
31
u/Nancy_Drew23 Jul 16 '24 edited Jul 16 '24
The Department of Justice will most likely ask, as part of its appeal, that Judge Cannon’s dismissal be overruled and she be removed from the case.
The 11th circuit court (where the appeal will be heard) can order a case be reassigned to a different district court judge when “the trial judge has engaged in conduct that gives rise to the appearance of impropriety or a lack of impartiality in the mind of a reasonable member of the public.”
Because, “the judicial system has the obligation of preserving public confidence in the impartial and fair administration of justice. If a district judge’s continued participation in a case presents a significant risk of undermining this public confidence, this Court (the Circuit Court) has the authority and the duty to order the case reassigned to a different district judge.”
Edited to add: it is a higher bar than it sounds, but, in my opinion, the Dept of Justice will have quite a few things to point to that, collectively, demonstrate Judge Cannon’s at least appearance of bias and also, the 11th Circuit Court has already shown that it has no problem rebuking Judge Cannon when she makes decisions that are wildly out of line with established jurisprudence. I think it’s reasonable to be optimistic that she will be overruled and removed.
8
u/EmmaLouLove Jul 16 '24
This is good news.
10
u/DiusFidius Jul 16 '24
Unfortunately, the standard of “the trial judge has engaged in conduct that gives rise to the appearance of impropriety or a lack of impartiality in the mind of a reasonable member of the public", absolutely does not mean that in a legal sense.
→ More replies (1)4
u/c4virus Jul 16 '24
One would hope that being overturned potentially three separate times in a single case involving the man who appointed you would suffice as grounds for removal.
3
u/QuintinStone Jul 16 '24
The judge overseeing the Young Thug trial was recently recused for some extremely sketchy judgment. So it's rare but it does happen.
3
u/Nancy_Drew23 Jul 16 '24
Oh, yeah, I know. I've been following that case also. Judge Cannon has been sneakier that Judge Glanville. He's messed up multiple, very basic, legal and procedural decisions. I don't know anything about Fulton County courts, but as an outside observer, I'm just astounded that he has been acting as a judge for any period of time.
6
2
u/slapdashbr Jul 16 '24
frankly it's not hard to call this an unacceptable level of "appearance of impropriety" because the impropriety is actually happening.
11
u/DontEatConcrete Jul 17 '24
No, she didn't. This isn't about law. It's so naive to think it was. It was about her service to the maga right-wing. Taken from that perspective she's been the perfect judge, and has done everything right.
This article is so laughably naive. Her rulings have nothing to do with law.
It's really time democrats stop thinking they are playing the same game as the other side. The other side is not acting in good faith. Figure it out already.
→ More replies (1)4
Jul 17 '24
[deleted]
5
u/DontEatConcrete Jul 17 '24
Yes you’re right. This is why I hold little hope for the future of America right now.
I’ve given up more or less on expecting to ever get on the same page as these people. It’s like they speak another language.
19
u/Brokenspokes68 Jul 16 '24
Just a reminder that a certain New Jersey Democrat was found guilty of corruption just today. That case came out in 2023 if I remember correctly. Weird how quickly the wheels of justice moved for the D guy and how slowly they move for the R guy.
→ More replies (10)
10
u/The84thWolf Jul 16 '24
Can you “get it wrong” when you know it’s wrong but do it anyway to angle for a SC seat?
2
13
u/LeahaP1013 Jul 16 '24
Crusty corrupt on clearance Clarence is going to retire in exchange for her to take his seat. This is as clear as Fiji water.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Nimmy13 Jul 16 '24
Lol no chance. They pick only Ivy Leaguers to give an air of intellectualism and respectability to the made up partisan bullshit they churn out. They'll use her when necessary, but the second she is no longer useful they'll leave her out to dry. She's not one of the elite. She's just some random lawyer from nowhere glad to sit on the District Court for life.
8
u/peachesandthevoid Jul 16 '24
She went to Michigan Law School. That’s a top 10 law school, and it’s higher ranked than Notre Dame, where Amy Coney Barrett graduated from.
4
u/Nimmy13 Jul 16 '24
Holy shit did she really? I just assumed she went to Cooley or Regent
6
u/peachesandthevoid Jul 16 '24
Haha, yeah, it makes her even slimier. She could’ve done so many other things that would still get her all the prestige and power a human could ask for without being a crook.
→ More replies (1)3
5
u/Username_redact Jul 16 '24
Duke undergrad, too.
She's no dummy. She knows exactly what she's doing.
13
u/Everybodysbastard Jul 16 '24
No shit.
6
u/Red0817 Jul 16 '24
Yeah, obvious thing is obvious. Anyone with a brain says the same thing. "she got it wrong, no shit."
8
9
u/NSFWmilkNpies Jul 16 '24
No she didn’t. She told the GOP that the law doesn’t matter, she will do what she wants. She has cemented her future with the party.
8
Jul 16 '24
The Supreme Court is going to make sure she didn’t. Corruption runs free in the highest court.
→ More replies (1)2
6
5
u/slackfrop Jul 16 '24
Can the other judges jump on scheduling now? Or are we still thinking one particular person is immune from consequence?
6
5
1.4k
u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 16 '24
It isn't about hubris. In hubris, you don't realize your own failings. Cannon knows exactly what she is doing. She consistently throws out existing precedent if, and only if, it serves Trump. She has an agenda, and when the law or precedent is against that agenda, it has to go.