With this judge having been appointed by Trump and already having her rulings overturned for blatant favoritism towards him, does anyone seriously think this is going to be a fair trial?
I read an article from NYT on her that actually painted her in a much better light, despite her overturned ruling. They even talked about how that overturned decision wasn't that unreasonable under normal circumstances. If she ends up being too favorable, she can very quickly be removed. At this point, with all eyes on her, I would imagine she would try to be fair about it. So do I think it's going to be a fair trial? I'd give it a solid maybe.
Just found the article- thanks for mentioning it. Good to hear a different perspective on the whole thing. We will see how things shape up over the next year.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/us/judge-cannon.html
Thank you for following up and posting the link!
It might be in his favor as the judge controls what is allowed and what is not to be presented. But ultimately the decision falls on the jury. The fact that her previous decisions were overturned by appellate court might also make her more cautious about showing favoritism.
If it even makes it that far. She could just dismiss the case entirely— and that’s not appealable I believe. I’m really hoping she’ll be a truly neutral arbiter, but I’m not holding my breath.
Dismissal without prejudice allows the procecuting party to just re-file the charges once the cause for dismissal is addressed. And there are very limited cirmustances where dismissal with prejudice is applicable.
She can act within that laws, which some will favor Trump. However, if she blatantly skirts the laws to favor Trump then she will be removed and possibly face charges. It would not only guarantee a Biden second term but possibly a Democrat super majority in the House and Senate. With that, they could impeach and have her removed.
Can be removed. Whether she will is quite another matter.
Yeah it's a bit funny to fall back on the 'rule of law saving the day' in terms of this high-ranking government official when the hypothetical we're discussing here is the judge letting off a separate high-ranking government official after he blatantly broke the law.
I love your optimism, but half the country has bought into the fact that this is all a partisan witch hunt and that Biden has “weaponized” the DoJ to go after a ”completely innocent” Trump. There‘s no way that any bullshit ruling by Cannon will somehow swing public opinion massively in favor of the Democrats.
Scarily enough, it’s far more likely that this galvanizes the right and Trump ends up winning in 2024.
Trump has a major problem. He's not gaining any new voters. Nobody is coming along saying, "Ya know, I took a second look at this guy and he ain't that bad!" Many of the ones he has are as hardcore as they come, not going anywhere. The rest were just ignorant "anything but a Dem" voters. At worst, those sorts will stay home.
He simply can't win another election without unprecedented voter suppression, to the tune of millions and millions of ballots. And remember, he pulled out all the stops last time and failed.
The 2022 election would say that most of the country has turned against Trump. With the majority of his picks losing. The political environment is changing. Another 2 years add a larger Democrat base in gen z voters that heavily lean left. Plus the extra 2 years kill off heavily leaning right voters. It's a lose-lose for the Republicans, that's why they want to raise the voting age.
I think he's got too much baggage to win in 2024. I think Republicans will circle the wagons around DeSantis this time. Our best hope is that Trump loses the primaries and then runs 3rd party to split the conservative vote.
How would she be removed? Who would decide that?
The chief justice of the district court can reassign the case to another judge. This would be the easiest way and save face for Judge Cannon.
Slate goes through the different ways this could be accomplished legally.
The other thing to think about is what she would accomplish by interfering with the proceeding. Trump will be indicted for the racketeering in Georgia. So she stand to gain nothing by showboating and could lose everything instead.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/trump-indictment-remove-judge-aileen-cannon.html
Was the chief justice of the district court involved with the overruling that occured with her previous decision? The language in the ruling seemed pretty harsh towards her, but I'm not clear if the opinions of higher courts have any affect on her career. I don't know much about the legal system, but it seems like Federal judges don't have anything to worry about other than impeachment, which is next to impossible.
No, the Chief Justice is part of the state. The 11th circuit is Federal Judges.
As for the impact on her career, it would take a Trump type to nominate her for the Supreme Court. Her nomination would be a firestorm. Mainly to her very liberal interpretation of the law used in this case.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.