this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
677 points (98.3% liked)


18107 readers
3167 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!


  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:


World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

As part of an analysis of how U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon, reports from her courtroom show a judge who is both "prickly" and" insecure" and often has trouble understanding what lawyers from both sides try to explain to her.

The controversial Cannon -- who has been accused of slow-walking Donald Trump's obstruction of justice trial related to his alleged illegal retention of government documents -- in recent hearings has pressed lawyers to remake their points over and over, which led to the New York Times' Alan Feuer to question whether, "she does not understand the answers she is receiving or is trying to push back against them."

"Only the best," am I right?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 171 points 1 month ago (3 children)

She needs to stop being a judge. She is supremely unqualified and has a clear political agenda.

[–] [email protected] 118 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She's gonna be on SCOTUS within a decade.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)

President DeSantis' first pick.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Please don’t use the word supreme anywhere near a description of Cannon.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)


Aileen Cannon is supremely deserving of being appointed to the highest (lit.) court by being fired out of a cannon into the sun.

Fit your favor better?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Love the sentiment. Still concerned about tempting fate with that adverb though.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 114 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Hanlon's razor.

Either way, the only resolution is disbarment/impeachment.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago

More like Trumpet's cannon.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What if she's feigning stupidity to enact malice?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

You’d have to be pretty dumb to try that.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Even if she is disbarred, it won’t matter. She will still be a federal judge.

Impeachment is the only way to correct this shitshow. She isn’t qualified to work at McDonald’s.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 91 points 1 month ago (24 children)

Conservatives, including judges, are not known for their intelligence.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago

That but lower the bar a few more notches still for Trump appointees.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] [email protected] 75 points 1 month ago (3 children)

How is it not a conflict of interest that “Donald Trump appointed her to the lifetime position”. ? Haven’t judges been asked to recuse themselves over less? I’m genuinely confused.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I don't think that's fundamentally disqualifying. What's the proposal on who could reasonably try this case? Are appointees by political opponents okay? Only appointees pre Clinton?

The bigger problem, regardless of who is on trial, is she was never supposed to be on the bench.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Her promotion was purely ideological. It had nothing to do with her legal accumen.

It's definitely possible Trump could have found someone who was both technically skilled AND sheep dipped well enough not to be an obvious hack. But... why bother? The Senate didn't care enough to block her and they certainly aren't going to impeach her.

So democracy is working as designed.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I also don't think it's too high of a bar for the public to want a judge not appointed by the defendant for a criminal trial.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is anything "fundamentally disqualifying"? It appears to me that nothing is. It's all honor code bullshit that only works when everyone is acting in good faith.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

In a normal court, the justices are often held in high regard, whereby whomever appointed them is hardly even a factoid.

The problem is that with Trump, he's known for quid pro quo as well as just not even knowing the person. Odds are good that Bannon slipped her name to Trump and suddenly she's "the most brilliant legal mind the nation has ever known. Just brilliant. Very smart."

Besides being nominated by Trump, I'm not sure if the prosecutors had any standing to have her recused.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 month ago

GOP doesn't hire people for their qualifications, only their perceived blind loyalty to the party

[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 month ago (1 children)

often has trouble understanding

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

'I am no man'

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 month ago (1 children)

To me, it looks like she's feigning confusion just to give her yet another excuse to shit all over the prosecution. The defense made an absurd request, the judge acted like she was having trouble understanding until the prosecution said something out of frustration and Cannon hopped on him for it.

Serious question. No joke. no hyperbole. Outside of outright dismissing the case (which she already said she intends to do after the jury is seated, so double jeopardy attaches), has she made a single ruling that wasn't heavily in Trump's favor? Has a single dispute not ended with her somehow blaming and shitting on the prosecution?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Brainless broad behind bench baffled

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago

Cannon cannot comprehend court concepts

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lawyer: Ok, so its a futuristic movie set in the distant past in a galaxy far far away... A galaxy is a collection of planetary sytems... Earth is a planet..... No. No that doesn't mean there's humans on .. Your honour its a fictional movie... No I'm not calling you stupid... Fine hold me in contempt.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)


^ Aileen Cannon

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This lady is a pathetically corrupt clown

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In her defense, she could also be incredibly stupid.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

Brainless twit is a threat to the U.S.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

Take a minute to empathize with those poor worms who sufferes inside her skull.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Meanwhile in NY, he's guilty on all counts

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

Best as far as Trump is concerned for him.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Hand picked by Donald and rubber stamped by Mitch

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

As part of an analysis of how [...]

'How' what? Either their editors suck and missed the opening sentence or I'm just incapable of parsing English anymore.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

My Cousin Vinnie, but backwards

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›