There is a legal point or there isn’t. I’ve seen no hints of the SC attempting to try this in the court of public opinion. Tapping the side of your nose while cocking an eyebrow about how subtle it all is, isn’t saying anything.
Impartial is accepting facts as they are regardless of who the facts favor.
2 Likes
Unless the Repubs prevail none of them.have judicial futures unless they leave her office.
1 Like
Hit a nerve, did I?
Liljeberg v. Health Svcs. Acq. Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988)
I can Google you know.
Edit: I know I shouldn’t play a game that I’m not good at, pretending I’m a lawyer, and you are good at, but you’re f****** insufferable.
Now a Republican congressman from Texas, Dan Crenshaw (the Fox News guy-with-eyepatch-regular) has decided to grandstand on the OceanGate Sub Crisis. Apparently anybody can play this attention game.
1 Like
Nonsense. No one goes straight from clerk to judge. They go to DoJ positions, or to prestigious law firms. They spent years on the federalist gladhanding circuit waiting for the gop nominations door to open. They can even get nominated by a dem administration in one of those “one for me, one for you” situations gop senators can create with the blue slip rule. Beiing clerk to a federal judge is a fantastic ticket to advancement, and no one leaves early. You think any of justice clarence sale’s clerks thought about leaving early?
1 Like
No, reading-challenged. You realize you accused the guy who upthread described this judge as “an amoral hack who uses the bench for professional advancement”, of defending her?
1 Like
The appearance of impropiety came from the judge having a material stake in one of the litigants (seat on the board of regents) which is indeed one of the few causes for recusal that exist. Unless you can demonstrate that cannon is on the donbald’s or one of his PACs’ payrolls, that case is irrelevant. A judge having made past rulings in favor of one of the litigants is not an impropriety as far as recusal is concerned, no matter how whacko the rulings or how swiftly they were overturned.
I can Google you know.
Perhaps, but you can’t do reading comprehension, logic, or bothering to invest time in learning the subject matter before mouthing off on it.
2 Likes
That’s why Cannon’s unforced credulity was and is an issue in this case.
2 Likes
Or in addition to.
1 Like
Of course, she failed to do that last time. So this time she’s going to do her wrongs right?
1 Like
Note that this might not be about her being duped. Instead, it might be about her participating in a secret effort to get Trump declared the actual winner of the 2020 election through some sort of bogus judicial series of rulings.
1 Like
E. Corcoran has a big advantage if Trump tries to stick Corcoran with much blame for this. For instance Corcoran has already given testimony to the investigators and one or more grand juries investigating Trump’s crimin here. Trump? He’s whining in public but hasn’t put his word under oath as yet.
2 Likes
I don’t know why we’re assuming that Cannon’s reaction will be “well, the evidence the government is providing is obviously accurate and credible and it contradicts what Trump said in the previous case; therefore, Trump must have lied.” Why wouldn’t it be “well,the evidence Trump provided in the previous case is obviously accurate and credible and it contradicts what the government is saying now; therefore, the government must be lying now”? That’s the standard move from the right-wing playbook: “sure, you say that, but you’re only saying it because you hate Trump and you want to destroy him, so why should I believe you?” It’s ultimately up to the jury to decide who’s telling the truth and who’s lying, but judges have a lot of control over what juries get to hear, and I’m not discounting the possibility that Trump’s lawyers might move to exclude all the evidence supporting the allegations in the indictment on the basis that it’s so obviously lacking in credibility that the jury shouldn’t be exposed to it, and that she might rubber-stamp it just like she rubber-stamped their last absolutely outrageously ridiculous request. I expect the Eleventh Circuit would slap her down again, but that could take enough time to put this out past the election.
2 Likes
My working assumption is that she will not risk being slapped down again. She miscalculated that even the two TFG judges on that panel care more about the rule of law than they do about a tenuous shot at promotion.
1 Like
I thought Dan Crenshaw had defined the absurdity limits of the Sub Crisis Media Circus Spectacular Spectacular. But no, in other sub-adjacent news:
Have we set a lower bound yet?
2 Likes
He will be moderately missed.
1 Like
It’s not really a conflict of interest. The two cases are related and it simply confirms that TFG is a liar who can’t be trusted. Bummer for him.
Completely off topic, but: Goldfinger is a gloriously silly movie.
2 Likes