'Confused' Judge Cannon needed concept explained 'slowly' to her in court by lawyers: NYT

theprogressivist @lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 668 points – 'Confused' Judge Cannon needed concept explained 'slowly' to her in court by lawyers: NYT
rawstory.com

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?

89

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

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.

Any time anyone says "shoot X into the sun" I can't help but think of how much energy it actually takes to do so. You have to shed all momentum from the orbit to actually go into free fall.

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.

3 more...

Hanlon's razor.

Either way, the only resolution is disbarment/impeachment.

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.

Hanlon's razor is dumb, especially when dealing with people known for acting in bad faith.

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

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

Yet they seem to dominate when sparring with the left.

If you think spewing mostly fabricated, irrelevant nonsense is dominating, then yes. They absolutely dominate.

Edit: ooof, that post history

I think there is more going on then that. Wouldn't you?

If I go ask ten people what they think about any wedge issue, majority of them will give right wing talking points even if they don't lean right.

They're winning and being ignorant to it doesn't help any. I still see assholes on my overpass on weekends rotating topics like carbon taxes, vaccines, bill gates, WHO and so on. The supporting honks they get is soul crushing.

Can you explain what spewing mostly fabricated, irrelevant nonsense has to do with being dominate socially or politically? Cause I would argue it's more of an obstacle to dominating in these areas.

Yes, you are correct — their rhetoric is more further-reaching, no doubt. They control the narratives, absolutely. But this isn't because they're being rhetoricians, it's because:

  • They lack the morality to care.
  • They have the vast majority of the money and with it a greater loudspeaker.
  • Selling fear and rageporn and lies and half-truths will always be easier than conveying the complexity and nuance of truth and reality.

They lack the morality to care.

And where is the morality in letting a political party without morals gain power. When was the last time that Clark Kent was a relevant archetype. The antihero is king now. But also is it real morals when there isn't really any rules beyond social norms. All of them are corrupt regardless. I wouldn't call some of the Democrats moral actors. They just attempt to act more as adults.

They have the vast majority of the money and with it a greater loudspeaker.

But the left also has money but why has the right used it to secure so many public areas. Like all their civil actions had so much funding. I remember individuals donating millions to the clownvoy. Charlie Kirk is successful becoming a millionaire as a college drop out who opened a political shit throwing business and introducing youth on campuses around the country to people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. What was the left doing?

Selling fear and rage porn and lies and half-truths will always be easier than conveying the complexity and nuance of truth and reality.

Sure, but again who gives two shits about truths and reality. We all went nuts for Plato's allegory of the cave for a few months a while ago for a reason. Truths don't matter, but truth does. The Republicans win because they understand this. And as I get older I think this idea that the left hobbles themselves because they're focused on being moral and truth seekers is more of an excuse for not being as effective as they should be.

You hang out with stupid people. You have confused your friends with a random sample of the population.

Don't be rude. Acting as if you're more enlightened can be a defense mechanism. People aren't stupid because they lean right on issues. Most people on the right are business owners and have figured enough out in life to become fairly successful.

You have confused your friends with a random sample of the population

Reread what you're implying vs who I said I would ask and think about who is confused about a random sample. It seems you are under the impression I'm asking people I hang out with when that was never said.

If I go ask ten people what they think about any wedge issue, majority of them will give right wing talking points even if they don’t lean right.

Arguing with a conservative is like playing chess with a pigeon. The problem is that onlookers think the pigeon won after it shits all over the board.

The problem also is it's up to the onlookers to decide who "won".

I disagree. Its so much bigger than arguing with randoms online. Its about average opinion of average people.

I'm sorry, who's the current president again?

Yup and how much was the electoral process and democracy damaged?

We're debating right now what happens if a president is in prison.

Joe Biden won. But how confident are you that he's holding for the next ten years? Plus who owns the courts right now for the next couple decades. Ground is lost everyday. Just wait for an economic downturn.

I know it's a very difficult concept for trumpists to grasp, but some people respect term limits, so Biden doesn't actually hold out for the next 10 years.

Democrats hold on and don't shit the bed.

Correct, Diaper Donny does shit the bed on the regular though.

sure, diaper Donny is an absolute turd. But a turd who somehow has built a base that has more energy and commitment than anything in any other political group. They stormed the capital when he lost. They have hobbled elections and democracy for at least the next couple elections. And that's only because Donny is such an idiot. You're looking at this the wrong way. Donny as you would say is an absolute moron and shits the bed. But the left still lost and is only going to win the next election because Biden has been ok as a president. If Trump wasn't an idiot, America could be in a much different place right now. And really, it kind of is in a much different place since the democrats lost the courts for a possible a couple decades.

I'm not sure why you got downvoted for this, so I upvoted it.

The Democrats are having a hell of a time making things work out for them. Every election they have, they are at BEST tied and frequently have times where they are under water on polling. The average person has no idea what the Dems have done for him, and only sees 'muh gas cost more, muh groceries cost more, and it's all Biden's fault.'

Biden's numbers go up when he Dark Brandons, but they don't stay that way because the Right's bullshit is non-stop and never-ending. You get force-fed it by supposedly 'left'-leaning organisations like CNN and MSNBC. The only voices those media outlets let speak are the ones hand-wringing about the latest thing Dems got wrong, and of course constant non-stop coverage of the worst aspects of the protests on the Left. And then Biden goes back to being quiet. We voters on the left are basically treated like mushrooms, 'fed shit and kept in the dark.' Moderates start buying the rhetoric that inflation is Biden's fault and Biden's responsibility to fix, despite the fact that profits are at an all-time high.

I'd be careful about calling Trump an idiot. You don't get where he has gotten while being an idiot. Let's not attribute to incompetence what SHOULD be attributed to malice. Trump failed to get where he wanted to be because he underestimated the bureaucracy. He's not planning on doing that this time, nor are his backers, and the Project to Dismantle American Democracy (euphemistically called Project 2025) details EXACTLY how he intends to do it.

Trump's shitting the bed is intentional, because he knows that he could broadcast a live TV video feed during prime time of him in bed, with a live boy, a dead girl, a half-eaten puppy, and a half-eaten kitten, and then take a massive shit right in the middle of that bed, and 30% of Americans would vote for him with no reservations, and another 15-20% would vote for him 'because he's our guy who shits the bed and not the other guy or gal.' As he famously said, he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and those 30% would STILL vote for him. America has a taste for authoritarianism (as it always has, REALLY, some people need to study history), and Trump has leveraged that for political gain.

We need to stop underestimating Trump's ability and intelligence, and by 'we', I mean the Democratic Party leadership, starting all the way at the top with President Biden. It's time for Dark Brandon to come out and not go back home until after Election Day, and for heavens sake, keep trotting him out the next four years.

PS: Let's either swap Harris out, or make her start being the face of this Admin. Biden can't run in 2028, and if Trump Sr. isn't there to capitalise on this, Trump Jr. or some other authoritarian jerk will be, as will Project 20259.

Thank you for understanding. I feel like I'm going insane seeing this and doesn't seem others are grasping this stuff. Sadly I don't think trump is dump either but I feel like it has to be said here just so I don't have to also go into explaining that. The right is smart where the left is not. The right wing seems to grasp social game more. Trump knows how to make politics entertaining to average guys

"Biden is so bad that Trump might actually get elected" is not the defence of Republicans that you think it is.

1 more...
1 more...

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.

Wouldn't it be nice if the public had any say in the matter

Nah, the Founding Fathers specifically didn't want a moron like Trump running things, so this is democracy breaking down.

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.

The real problem is that she was appointed in the first place. The system that made that possible was never designed to work when half the people running it are saboteurs.

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.

I'm not sure if the prosecutors had any standing to have her recused.

Maybe not at the time, but how about now?

She was selected by the Federalist Society. Trump rubber stamped her (like he did the vast majority of appointments he made.)

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."

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?

I dunno, plain incompetence is perfectly plausible.

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

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.

I’m not only not shocked about it, I’m 100% that this is more then normal for judges. We pretend they are knowledgeable and experienced, as they should. But a job that is appointed is always going to fall into nepotism, taking sides and incompetence.

The language of law isn’t straightforward, which is why most of us need to hire lawyers to defend ourselves and why we need judges who are versed in the language as well. Just because someone might appear to be “good” at making tough calls or judgements does not make them a good judge.

I’m almost guessing, outside of the very strong possibility that she is incompetent, that this is a tactic. I’ve experienced many instances of someone pretending to not understand or needing something spelled out several times as a way to distract from the actual topic.

We all know if this judge was Anti-Trump, she and her family would already be hidden away by the police because of the gazillion death threats and AR-15 wielding rednecks on her driveway...

Throw it in ChatGPT to explain like she is 5, just to not waste too much time.

Sadly not that unusual. Lots of judges are . . . not great lawyers.

To be fair a judge mostly uses a slightly different skill set, practically speaking. But that doesn’t matter here, she’s objectively corrupt and terrible. Impeachment or trebuchet-to-the-sun.

What jurisdiction do you practice in, if you don't mind asking? I work in one of the bigger trial courts in the United States and have NEVER seen lawyers have to explain a concept like this to any judicial officer I've ever worked with across 5 years of trial. Aileen Cannon is a national disgrace.

Yeah this is embarrassing for her, frankly.

You don’t have appeals for stupid things judges do? Well, that sounds nice.

I’m not saying it’s endemic to hear a judge doesn’t know the law in certain situations, but it’s definitely happened. Depending on the judge - a lot.