Judge Aileen Cannon has thrown the documents case out but of course the Trump haters will claim it was political.
Over 50 years of other judicial cases showing that the appointments of special counsel are within the scope of the DOJ heads authority by statute and the appointment of a special prosecutor was not required to go through Congress (referred to as precedent). She is the ONLY outlier. And this is the same judge that has already issued 2 decisions that favored Trump that were overturned on appeal by the DOJ to the Appeals Court. So yeah, I think it is easy to argue there are some politics at play with her decision making.
In fact, Judge Dabney Friedrich of the District Court in D.C. (who is, by the way, a Trump appointee) through out a similar challenge.
To add TO that fact, U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis (appointed by Ronald Reagan, another Republican) also dismissed a similar challenge.
Or how about In 2020, in an Appointments Clause case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Supreme Court essentially reaffirmed Morrison v. Olson as a valid exception to a general rule about appointments.
Or how about the Supreme Court precedent in
United States v. Nixon. There’s a sentence in that 9-0 opinion which resolves this issue entirely. The sentence says that Archibald Cox, who was one of the prosecutors of Nixon, was appropriately appointed pursuant to the statute. And it is this case that Cannon decided that the SC decision was not binding because of HER reading of a line or two of the decision... and this is where her getting overturned is going to revolve around... and probably her being removed from the case totally.
In fact, there are constitutional scholars on both the left and the right that believe that the decision that the Supreme Court made was not founded in "law" but more in political bias in several aspects.
It's the same way that the Roe v. Wade decision was patently political in the Supreme Courts recent decision. You had 50 years of existing law (that word precedent again) that was suddenly overturned because the conservatives did not like it. In fact, Alito has stated
Abortion presents a profound moral question
Guess what, the courts are not there to answer moral questions. Last I checked, the only places with morality police were places like Iran.
The problem that the courts are having is that something that has long been respected in judicial decision making is "not important" now... the use of precedent. If the courts are subject to the vagaries of what is "popular" at the time, they cease being an equal arbiter of justice. The problem with the current Supreme Courts position that they use "historical context" is hysterically ludicrous, as they clearly have issued decisions that did not use that process, and their hypocrisy is visible to all. That's one reason that the Supreme Court is not held in high regard now as compared to in the past.
As to their statement that it should be "left to the states"... no, the protection of the rights of individuals are ultimately left up toe the Federal Government and the Supreme Court... a position that the Supreme Court seems to reject in an attempt to please the right. I can promise their stance, if it was pushed in a left leaning state passing a local law that the right did not like, would get overturned and then suddenly the Federal Government has control/decision over it in the form of the judicial branch. California could easily pass a law that legalizes the
Chevron doctrine in law and according to the Supreme Court, they have no say in it, since stuff should be left to the states like this and the federal government has no control.
Supreme Court ruled on Presidential immunity, not 5-4 but 6-3 and no doubt one of the Judges that voted againts was the Biden appointed judge that was unable to define a woman - wonderful, can't define a woman yet appointed Supreme Court.
Well, considering that 6 of the justices are appointed by Republicans and 3 by Democrats, that should immediately point out HOW political that decision was. And last time I checked, "woman" was not a biological state of being, but a term (phrase) that has historically been used to refer to a biological female. And use of words (terms) change over time. We wear boots, other places store stuff in a boot (vehicle). And then to top it off, those that do transition their native biological equipment from a penis to a vagina, are they now female or are they still male? Do they qualify as being called a "woman" since they have all "important plumbing" of a female? And before you chime in that "well, they can't have children", I guess that means that every female that has had a hysterectomy are no longer female? Or that females that were born with birth defects that prevent them from having children are not female?
And to give full clarification to your statement (which is only partial in use of statements to try and make a point and typical of a Trump style believer), the full answer consisted of this also
Not in this context. I’m not a biologist"
from Jackson. The questioner was wanting a morality based answer and was given a scientifically factual based one instead (ooh... that pesky world
facts coming into play again!). And I would prefer my justices to make decisions based upon fact and not morals.
You may want to do a little more research on Marsha Blackburn.
You mention the J6 demonstrations, even many of those offences have now been overturned.
Sorry, many of them have NOT been overturned. They may have grounds to pursue that, but they are still convicted.
And I don't think that 355 of the 1,424 convictions are a noticeable segment of the charged ones, considering that many of those 355 also had other charges against them and it was not the sole charge.
And remember, many of those that were charged with that crime were also charged with other crimes... take for an example Sean Michael McHugh, who used bear spray on police officers and encouraged rioters onward with a megaphone, who was sentenced to 78 months in prison. One of those charges against him was what you claimed was overturned.. but it does not affect the remainder of the charges and he has not appealed the one based upon that court decision.
But just one more attempt at diverting attention from the crimes and trying to "excuse" them.
The assassination attempt was a classic example, when the left get upset riots ensue, cities get torched, shops get looted, people die, Trump nearly gets killed, nothing happens. Something may have occurred had he actually been killed, that is hypothetical.
Ironically... guess what... last I checked being a registered Republican indicates you are NOT a part of the left, but the right, as Republicans are known as conservatives. So apparently it was a conservative shooting at Trump, not one of those looney-lefties. Now, it is still under investigation whether politics even had anything to do with that shooting of Trump or if it was an opportunity act.
If talking about the riots in Portland and stuff, you do realize that a LOT of that was done by anarchist, correct? Last time I checked, anarchist are not left OR right. They are for anarchy, a position that has no political bent. But the Right likes to try to roll them out as being leftists.
To put it succinctly , this is a good definition of anarchism
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including the state and capitalism.
I highlighted the part you need to pay special attention to. Granted, there were also radical far-left parties involved in those disturbances, but the majority were anarchists and the militant portion of Antifa. And no, not all of Antifa believers are violent or followers of militant beliefs. Like all groups there is a segment of them that are, just like not all ultra-right wingers are violent.
In fact, these results from a study by the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonprofit policy research group back then puts your position about those "violent leftists" into perspective from that period.
Though 70 percent of terrorist attacks and plots in the U.S. last year were committed by white supremacists and far-right militia groups, according to the study, the portion led by anarchist and anti-fascist groups rose to 20 percent from 8 percent in 2019
... last year being the year 2020.
In fact, even in the recent GOP "nut-fest" convention they had, Kevin Roberts (Heritage Foundation President) stated
Most political violence in the last 25 years has been initiated by the left
Only problem is reporting based upon research showed:
Two years ago a team of researchers from four universities
examined court records and other data relating to 3,500 extremists active in the U.S. between 1948 and 2022. The individuals were split into three groups — left wing, right wing and relating to Islamic extremism. While some in the database had committed violent acts, others had raised money for extremist groups, volunteered or spoken out in favor of them.
Right-wing extremists were just as likely to commit violent acts as those motivated by Islamic extremism, the researchers found. Left-wing extremists were a distant third
That is VERY telling.... that the right wing were in the same grouping as Islamic extremist. And those nasty radical leftist were a
distant third. Again, those pesky facts seem to get in the way of a good fairy-tale from the MAGA faithful.
Sean Westwood, a Dartmouth College political scientist who directs the Polarization Research Lab stated
People typically overstate the violent intentions of those with different ideologies too, with one party believing the other is far more willing to commit violence to further their political agenda. That's one reason why it's so important for leaders from both parties to come together to call for unity and peaceful discourse
It's funny that this is prevalent amongst the right when accusing the "radical left" when facts show the opposite being true.
