Mar-a-Lago judge blasted for late trial date: "Cannon is slow-walking this case to benefit Trump"
Mar-a-Lago judge blasted for late trial date: "Cannon is slow-walking this case to benefit Trump"
The Trump appointee also denied the special counsel's request for outside attorneys to be present at the hearings
…
Legal experts criticized Cannon's pace in scheduling for the classified docs case with some accusing the Trump appointee of setting an elongated timeline to the former president's benefit.
"It really appears Cannon is slow-walking this case to benefit Trump," former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason, wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. "She's already had these motions for weeks, and schedules the hearings more than two weeks from now? And this after taking weeks to issue a standard protective order."
You're viewing a single thread.
The fact that a judge isn’t required to immediately recuse themselves if they’re picked for a case that involves the person who appointed them is insane. Sure, they’re “supposed to be impartial”, but judges are very obviously not being impartial… and there’s effect zero legal recourse for that.
If that were a thing, the right would clamor that it should also apply to judges appointed by the defendant's political opponents, and that would get all the cases against Turnip Dump tossed
She shouldnt be dismissed for being appointed by Trump.
She should be dismissed for being a die hard pro-trumpists who has tons of trump merchandise and a clear, personal bias towards Trump and has attended his rallys in full Trump face paint.
Though that sounds like it might make sense, if you actually think about it, it’s actually nonsense.
But this excludes all other judges that were appointed by 1) a different Republican president than Trump, and 2) a different Democrat president than Biden, no?
Unless all judge terms are shorter than 1-2 terms for presidents (haven't read all state/federal codes), this would leave a lot of judges left that would be considered less biased towards/against those under their prudence. No need to go nuclear devil's advocate for this one.
You are assuming republicans would negotiate in good faith, which is, forgive me, quite naïve.
I'm not claiming they would act in good faith, just that they would have less (unconscious) biased towards plaintiffs/defendants. Conscious biases would still be in play