Aileen Cannon’s Trump Ruling Likely to Be Reversed: Attorney

https://www.newsweek.com/aileen-cannon-trump-ruling-likely-reversed-attorney-1944965

34 Comments

  1. > According to [US attorney Joyce] Vance, Smith’s brief painstakingly demonstrated that Attorney General Merrick Garland had the statutory authority to appoint him, drawing on precedent from United States v. Nixon, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case.
    >
    > Vance pointed out that while Smith’s brief remains professionally neutral, it clearly indicates that Cannon’s interpretation of precedent was incorrect.
    >
    > Smith’s brief argued that Cannon disregarded established legal precedent, including the binding authority of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    [She’s only one person](https://www.newsweek.com/aileen-cannon-trump-ruling-likely-reversed-attorney-1944965), but the logic makes sense here, same for Smith’s case.

    Cannon’s been a biased, partisan hack from the start but even by her lax standards, this was a pretty egregious abuse of power and disregard of precedent. She basically brought a discredited conspiracy into the courtroom (Garland couldn’t appoint Smith) and gave it preference over binding precedent.

  2. RuncibleSpork on

    The ruling was probably only ever about trying to run out the clock, and they were able to do just that.

  3. OppositeDifference on

    She already got what she wanted. There’s no way the trial takes place before the election.

    I know there’s no easy way to do it, but she should be out of a job. Judges like her only exist to make bad things happen to benefit powerful people.

  4. It was literally against laws and precedents. She had to be told how a courtroom works. She was never a judge and never had any cases. She was a plant by trump to use as a tool. She is bought and paid for by trump, and paid him back for her LIFETIME appointment by throwing out his case. Her ruling was evidently a bad one from the start and she waited until a big public event in the news to make a fast ruling to avoid any attention when she did it.

  5. GrandMoffJenkins on

    All things being fair, and based in legal precedence, sure, but we live in strange times where many benches are infected with conservative religious extremism, and where many judges serve a different agenda than the law, or the Constitution.

  6. medievalmachine on

    This corrupt judge should be investigated. This will keep happening until there are consequences for the rich and their stooges.

  7. ShitBirdingAround on

    Loose Canon Aileen is a dishonorable clown. She put her loyalty to the MAGA cult over her duty to uphold her oath.

  8. kittenTakeover on

    It would be an astounding dereliction of duty by the court not to reverse the decision. There’s zero legal precident to support the dismissal. Honestly, the fact that Aileen Cannon dismissed the case on that argument shows that she shouldn’t be a judge. It’s a real shame to see what Donald has done to our court system. I hope that he doesn’t get a chance to corrupt it further.

  9. Such bullshit. How this could be allowed to stand unanswered for so long is beyond all reasoning. Judge Cannon should be tried and punished for High treason.

  10. Sure_Quality5354 on

    Im shocked that the higher courts havent intervened sooner and gotten her to fuck off. These people keep saying how deeply they care about justice and fairness and yet when judges are openly corrupt in their faces they take months to even acknowledge it

  11. Under the theory of *Res Ipsa*, tRump had documents at his resort, didn’t declassify them, tried to hide them, and the government only became aware after witness came out about it.

  12. As brilliant as Joyce is, I’ve been waiting way too long and have heard way too many unfulfilled predictions for justice to come for Donald Trump. The voters will have to do it. Again.

  13. If legal analysts were write about their predictions, this wouldn’t even be a thing. Wait and see. It isn’t over yet.

  14. If/when Harris wins, will she be appointing a new AG? Because Garland is a p.o.s. and we need someone with the courage to stand up to Trump and his sycophant Republicans.

  15. I mean, it’s almost a certainty at this point. If it’s already been ruled on by another court in the Biden case, then it makes sense that the same logic would apply in the documents case.

  16. The one positive of the Trump era is it has shone a light on many of the systemic flaws that need protection or fixing.