677
She needs to stop being a judge. She is supremely unqualified and has a clear political agenda.
She's gonna be on SCOTUS within a decade.
President DeSantis' first pick.
Please don’t use the word supreme anywhere near a description of Cannon.
Does
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?
Love the sentiment. Still concerned about tempting fate with that adverb though.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
She's only unqualified because you think that she should be fair and experienced. Neither of those attributes are desirable for trump, which is why he put her in that seat.
Hanlon's razor.
Either way, the only resolution is disbarment/impeachment.
More like Trumpet's cannon.
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)
Conservatives, including judges, are not known for their intelligence.
That but lower the bar a few more notches still for Trump appointees.
load more comments
(23 replies)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
GOP doesn't hire people for their qualifications, only their perceived blind loyalty to the party
often has trouble understanding
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
'I am no man'
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)
Brainless broad behind bench baffled
Cannon cannot comprehend court concepts
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)
This lady is a pathetically corrupt clown
Brainless twit is a threat to the U.S.
Take a minute to empathize with those poor worms who sufferes inside her skull.
Best as far as Trump is concerned for him.
Hand picked by Donald and rubber stamped by Mitch
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.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
677 points (98.3% liked)
politics
18114 readers
3592 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS