|
mdemone posted:Wow, they do not mince words in explaining how she erred. Lot of pressure on her now to rule before that Thursday deadline or people will be hollering. Honestly, while I knew that the Special Master thing was a dumb request, I didn’t really grasp just how nonsensical it was before reading this.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 13:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
Murgos posted:I read the whole thing and the tone came across to me as, “you loving idiot you spent 0 time thinking about this in your rush to be a political agent”. What's interesting is that by far most of the Trump appointed judges that Trump himself has stood before have ruled against him based on the law, though most of those judges were relatively qualified for their appointments anyway. So the question becomes what makes this current Judge dumb enough to try and assuage Trump when so many others were smart enough to tell him to gently caress off? It appears the answer is in the question. https://twitter.com/PeterVroom1/status/1567676847969673219 https://twitter.com/PeterVroom1/status/1567676857708863489 Along with SCOTUS it's pretty amazing to watch these "esteemed ultimate authority figures of American jurisprudence" just completely poo poo all over and make a mockery of American jurisprudence. Must be fun times being a law student these days. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Sep 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, really just some random idiot lawyer who happened to join the psycho judge factory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
There's a new episode of Opening Argument about this ruling: https://openargs.com/oa629-hack-judge-hands-trump-a-win-what-comes-next/ I wasn't aware but there's another podcast with Andrew Torrez that went into it in even more details a few days ago: https://mswmedia.com/show/clean-up-on-aisle-45/ (the Loose Cannon episode). Andrew's so mad lol. mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
Uhm, I suppose judges can be indicted for OOJ too. Cannon appears to be testing that notion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:What's interesting is that by far most of the Trump appointed judges that Trump himself has stood before have ruled against him based on the law, though most of those judges were relatively qualified for their appointments anyway. So the question becomes what makes this current Judge dumb enough to try and assuage Trump when so many others were smart enough to tell him to gently caress off? Can a federal judge be impeached for being unqualified, or do they need to commit a crime? (Granted, obstruction of justice is a crime...)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Pretty sure congress can impeach for a 20 year old parking ticket if they want to and there's no recourse. Impeaching a judge will never happen again though so it's a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:What's interesting is that by far most of the Trump appointed judges that Trump himself has stood before have ruled against him based on the law, though most of those judges were relatively qualified for their appointments anyway. So the question becomes what makes this current Judge dumb enough to try and assuage Trump when so many others were smart enough to tell him to gently caress off? My (probably naive and overly charitable) guess is that she's spooked by having any part of such an important and sensitive case land on her desk, given her lack of qualifications and the significant possibility that we're on the brink of civil war, so she'd rather let some other judge be the one to decide once and for all whether Trump can claim executive privilege or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
User Error posted:Pretty sure congress can impeach for a 20 year old parking ticket if they want to and there's no recourse. Impeaching a judge will never happen again though so it's a moot point. If you want to add a qualifier that we will never impeach a judge on a lame pretext when the real reason is judicial incompetence, then I agree that its unlikely. But Federal judges either get impeached or resign in disgrace when its clear they will be impeached and removed at a rate of roughly once or twice a decade. Usually for either something related to bribery or corruption, or for some other very serious crime unrelated to the bench. I don't think we ever impeached someone for "you suck at judging".
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
Are there still supposed to be hearings this month?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
While there's nothing limiting Congress from impeaching anyone for any reason, generally maladministration isn't considered grounds for impeachment. Alexander Hamilton wanted to explicitly include maladministration as grounds for impeachment, but was overruled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Are there still supposed to be hearings this month? I've heard the 28th suggested as a date. I don't think they're sure yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I've heard the 28th suggested as a date. I don't think they're sure yet. Later in the month means they'd finish up 2nd or 3rd week of October and have a few weeks for it to sink in for everyone, right before midterms. Sounds like a plan to me!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:My (probably naive and overly charitable) guess is that she's spooked by having any part of such an important and sensitive case land on her desk, given her lack of qualifications and the significant possibility that we're on the brink of civil war, so she'd rather let some other judge be the one to decide once and for all whether Trump can claim executive privilege or not. Or was pressured / threatened by the same people doing the witness tampering at the Jan 6 hearings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I've heard the 28th suggested as a date. I don't think they're sure yet. I think the DOJ has probably quietly indicated to J6 that they might wanna pump the brakes once or twice because of the MAL shitshow getting in the way of investigative work or taking time away from those investigators that might otherwise be assigned to J6.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Uhm, I suppose judges can be indicted for OOJ too. Cannon appears to be testing that notion. I expect OLC is revisiting this question as we speak.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If you want to add a qualifier that we will never impeach a judge on a lame pretext when the real reason is judicial incompetence, then I agree that its unlikely. But Federal judges either get impeached or resign in disgrace when its clear they will be impeached and removed at a rate of roughly once or twice a decade. Usually for either something related to bribery or corruption, or for some other very serious crime unrelated to the bench. I don't think we ever impeached someone for "you suck at judging". I'm pretty sure he means you'll never get 2/3rds of the senate to convict because any chudge they try to get rid of for any reason will be protected by the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:My (probably naive and overly charitable) guess is that she's spooked by having any part of such an important and sensitive case land on her desk, given her lack of qualifications and the significant possibility that we're on the brink of civil war, so she'd rather let some other judge be the one to decide once and for all whether Trump can claim executive privilege or not. She could have recused herself. She could still recuse herself. She thinks this is her moment to be a hero so she's going for it. As insane as her order now appears to be, granting unasked for relief, ignoring major factual considerations in granting that relief, ignoring all the courts normal process for pre-indictment hearings, I'm expecting her to start ignoring any attempt at legal justification or precedent and just start issuing commands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
Surely a sitting federal judge somewhere has been indicted for something. Anybody know of such a thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Surely a sitting federal judge somewhere has been indicted for something. Anybody know of such a thing? I'm sure a judge has been indicted for a crime. The question here is can a judge in the course of their duties be indicted for obstruction of justice? Facetiously, I said OLC is revising their opinion but I expect that the answer is no, she cannot be. The judiciary is an independent branch of government and much like 'speech and debate' clause stuff for senators I expect that unless caught red handed taking a bribe there isn't much you can do about making rulings based on political outcomes. edit: Not that her having taken a bribe (or having coordinated this result with Trump and been recorded) is off the table Murgos fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
There was that judge that took kickbacks from a private prison to send kids there even for minor stuff, he got indicted. A judge will probably not get indicted for protecting a powerful president because laws are only for the little people
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There was that judge that took kickbacks from a private prison to send kids there even for minor stuff, he got indicted. notably, the company that did the bribing made out just fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There was that judge that took kickbacks from a private prison to send kids there even for minor stuff, he got indicted. Was that a federal judge? The only instances I'm aware of are when state judges have been indicted by federal authorities. I don't think a sitting federal judge has ever been indicted for federal crimes but I'm trolling the records.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Was that a federal judge? The only instances I'm aware of are when state judges have been indicted by federal authorities. I don't think a sitting federal judge has ever been indicted for federal crimes but I'm trolling the records. State judge. Mark Ciavarella if you're googling for him. Good god he sent kids to prison for jaywalking 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 20:07
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I'm pretty sure he means you'll never get 2/3rds of the senate to convict because any chudge they try to get rid of for any reason will be protected by the Republicans. Its not a supreme court justice, there are something like over 800 Article 3 judges, any one of them is no big deal at all. If you had a chudge be credibly accused of a serious felony like bribery, I don't think even today's Senate GOP would have an issue with convicting him. Now, if Alito was caught committing a serious felony with a Democrat in the white house then yeah they'll figure out a way to vote no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
As early as 1804 federal judge John Pickering, who was widely known to be both severely mentally ill and also an alcoholic (likely self-medicating to deal with the mental illness), was successfully impeached and removed from office. This made the Marshall court in particular nervous (though all agreed Pickering was utterly unsuited to stay on the bench and needed to go) as they also saw this (rightly) as an effort by Jefferson to remove Federalists from the bench whenever given an excuse so to do, and also impeachment as defined in the constitution was supposed to be reserved for specific crimes, to which being drunk and insane did not rise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
A different federal judge in the same district as Cannon just tossed Trump suit against Hillary Clinton. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157.267.0.pdf He really lays into it too... quote:Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth over 527 paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the quote:Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint as ... “[w]hatever the utilities of [the Amended Complaint] as a Oh hey look, Trump failed to show he had standing in this one too: quote:A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and plain quote:What the Amended Complaint lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute I'm like 2 pages in... edit: Ohh, sanctions? quote:Plaintiff and his lawyers are of course free to reject the conclusion of the Inspector General. But they cannot misrepresent it in a pleading. Murgos fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Honestly, while I knew that the Special Master thing was a dumb request, I didn’t really grasp just how nonsensical it was before reading this. That's the thing. A chudge can basically derail any accountability for any republican based on nothing and the recourse(impeachment) will almost never happen so they can just do it. The Dobbs decision at SCOTUS was, among others like the voting oversight ruling, just complete made up out of nothing. But it's also esoteric enough that it's hard for the layperson to understand that it's all bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
Murgos posted:A different federal judge in the same district as Cannon just tossed Trump suit against Hillary Clinton. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157.267.0.pdf That whole ruling is a scream. Trump and his idiot attorneys are just completely excoriated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
Sitting judges' official actions on the bench in the scope of their role as a judge, including rulings, are protected by judicial immunity - even if those actions are outright malicious and obviously illegal. And by "obviously illegal", I mean poo poo like "the judge orders the police to rough up the defense lawyer", or other things that go well beyond just issuing a ruling we think doesn't line up with the law. Now, unofficial actions not taken from the bench and outside their role as a judge, such as taking bribes and kickbacks outside the courtroom, or engaging in an extensive media campaign to publicly defame and harass someone, those are things that aren't protected by judicial immunity. In order to charge a sitting federal judge with obstruction of justice based on one ordinary pre-trial order, you'd probably need evidence of the judge being involved in actual crimes, preferably ones committed outside the courtroom. Issuing a ruling you disagree with isn't illegal. Part of the underlying logic behind judicial immunity, by the way, is that we already have a working system for dealing with individual bad rulings: they can be appealed to another, higher judge, who is fully empowered to overturn them if they're not in line with the law and the shown facts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Part of the underlying logic behind judicial immunity, by the way, is that we already have a working system for dealing with individual bad rulings: they can be appealed to another, higher judge, who is fully empowered to overturn them if they're not in line with the law and the shown facts. Which is why you fill the entire system with federalist society idiots including the top tier which cannot be overruled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sitting judges' official actions on the bench in the scope of their role as a judge, including rulings, are protected by judicial immunity - even if those actions are outright malicious and obviously illegal. Thanks for the post. Would an example of "actual crimes" also include communicating with one party prior to motions being filed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
Couple more quotes from Judge Middlebrooks:quote:It is not simply that I find the Amended Complaint “inadequate in any respect”; it is inadequate in nearly every respect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
Oh hey speaking of that https://twitter.com/petestrzok/status/1568205728619307015 Certainly looks like Trump is obsessed with getting things before this specific judge who will issue garbage rear end rulings to help him!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Uhm, I suppose judges can be indicted for OOJ too. Cannon appears to be testing that notion. Judges generally have immunity for anything they rule in the course of their job. Even if the decision is terrible (and oh is it ever) that's not a crime. You'd need to prove there was a conspiracy and she was actively participating in it, or she took a bribe to issue this order, or some other demonstrable clear-cut crime. Getting appointed by a criminal and then turning around and ruling in said criminal's favor is not in itself illegal. She can totally be impeached, though. mdemone posted:Was that a federal judge? The only instances I'm aware of are when state judges have been indicted by federal authorities. I don't think a sitting federal judge has ever been indicted for federal crimes but I'm trolling the records. At least four judges have been indicted: US Court of Appeals Judge John Warren Davis Sr., who retired after indictment for conspiracy to obstruct justice and defraud the US over a case which began in his courtroom, then was let off after two trials ended in hung juries in 1939; US Court of Appeals Judge Martin T. Manton, convicted of having sold his office to patent case litigants in 1939; District Judge Albert W. Johnson, who resigned after being investigated by the House in 1945, then was indicted in 1947 for conspiracy to obstruct justice over his actions in 1943 and acquitted; and former Illinois Governor turned US Appeals Court Judge Otto Kerner Jr., convicted in 1973 of conspiracy, mail fraud, and perjury, who resigned in the face of certain impeachment and removal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
...cool, it's good that a judge with no judging experience and who the Bar said was unqualified is somehow in a district/position where some things can effectively just be filed with her. That doesn't seem ripe for abuse at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
Piell posted:Certainly looks like Trump is obsessed with getting things before this specific judge who will issue garbage rear end rulings to help him! I wonder what the quotes would look like had it gotten to Cannon instead of Middlebrooks. Probably something like, "I have never seen a more eloquent or compelling document that so clearly shows a need for a trial! Motion to dismiss denied and all named defendants are immediately remanded into custody pending the trial of this civil suit."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I wonder what the quotes would look like had it gotten to Cannon instead of Middlebrooks. Probably something like, "I have never seen a more eloquent or compelling document that so clearly shows a need for a trial! Motion to dismiss denied and all named defendants are immediately remanded into custody pending the trial of this civil suit." “And also I rule that Donald Trump is the current president of the United States.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
Piell posted:Oh hey speaking of that You can have clownshoes lawyers when you have a judge that will rubber stamp everything you do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
IPlayVideoGames posted:“And also I rule that Donald Trump is the current president of the United States.” I imagine this is how they were hoping it would play out https://i.imgur.com/TZf2cXz.mp4
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 22:18
|
|