Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

"If you still had doubts that Donald Trump’s relentless court-packing poses profound challenges to the legitimacy of the judiciary, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s ruling in favor of the man who appointed her should resolve them.

No one is above the law, we once comforted ourselves. Even if Trump could not be indicted while he was president because of a (questionable) Justice Department policy, he would certainly face full accountability after he left office. He would be treated just like everyone else.

Nope, said Cannon. Trump is still special. He has rights no one else has because he is an ex-president. She said so right out. “Based on the nature of this action,” Cannon wrote, “the principles of equity require the Court to consider the specific context at issue, and that consideration is inherently impacted by the position formerly held by Plaintiff.”

Meaning that, even if no other American would enjoy the right to have a special master examine secret and top secret documents that any of the rest of us would likely be indicted for possessing, Trump is “inherently” above us. This is a ruling tailored for one man, which is not supposed to happen in a free society.

Making matters worse, the judge said she had no way of assessing the government’s well-grounded claims that some of the documents in question “are classified government records,” even though Trump presented no evidence refuting them

Trump’s assertions that, like a high priest, he magically declassified everything with a virtual wave of his hand are for talk shows, not a legal proceeding. Trump, in any event, should not have possessed documents that are the government’s property, not his.

The Justice Department could not let Cannon’s nonsense stand. It filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Friday night arguing that the judge “fundamentally erred” in her decision, but focusing on only about 100 documents “bearing classification markings.” The department asked that they be kept out of the special master process (and away from Trump’s lawyers) so the FBI could continue its criminal investigation and “identify and mitigate potential national security risks.”

From her first ruling earlier this month, Cannon’s judgments have been described by respected outsiders with words such as “unprecedented,” “untenable,” “radical,” “oblivious,” “deeply problematic” and “stupid.” And also “wrong” and “deeply flawed.” Those last two characterizations came from Trump’s former attorney general, William P. Barr, whose own efforts to protect the president could lead to congressional scrutiny.

Cannon’s legal antics come at an awkward time for those — led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — who scold anyone questioning the judiciary’s legitimacy in the wake of the unparalleled efforts by Trump, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) when he was majority leader, and the conservative Federalist Society to stuff the courts with conservatives.

Roberts said earlier this month that “simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court.” Perhaps true in a vacuum, the statement is suffused with a faux innocence about how the current right-tilting Supreme Court majority — and similar majorities on many circuit courts — were created.
If McConnell and his allies had really cared about judicial legitimacy, they would not have denied Merrick Garland of even a hearing when President Barack Obama named him to the Supreme Court more than seven months before the 2016 e******n. (It’s either irony or tragedy that a Justice Department now lead by Attorney General Garland is battling Cannon’s Trumpfication of the law.)

Nor would conservatives have turned around four years later and rushed Justice Amy Coney Barrett through the Senate just eight days before Trump lost the 2020 e******n. You can’t engage in nakedly aggressive power politics and then insist: “Nothing happening here, it’s all on the level, move on.”

Not for nothing did Justice Elena Kagan point to the “problem” caused “when courts become extensions of the political process” during a visit to Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law last Wednesday. She was talking about court decisions, but her words apply as well to the process that produced a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court advantage — and judges such as Cannon.

Let’s stipulate: There’s always politics in a system involving p**********l appointments and Senate confirmation. What we have not seen before is what Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) calls “The Scheme,” the title of his forthcoming book on how dark money conjoined with Senate and p**********l actions to t***sform the judiciary. The legitimacy crisis Roberts mourns was triggered by the success of a relentless political struggle for judicial supremacy.
Maybe the 11th Circuit — even some in its majority named by Trump — will decide that Cannon’s ruling is too much of an embarrassment. Maybe Raymond Dearie, the special master she appointed, will save the day, allowing her to retreat. But Cannon has already shown why there is reason to shudder whenever we hear the words “Trump-appointed judge.”

E.J. Dionne Jr.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

No one is above the law? Judge Cannon says otherwise,

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

What a crock of crap, the FBI grabbed everything including client attorney privileged documents, the special master is a court appointed referee who was agreed upon by both sides who will determine which documents the DOJ should have access to and which documents are privileged. Problem with democrats especially when it comes to Trump is that you folks don't believe in constitutional guarantees of liberty.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Have you ever heard of a “Special Master” appointed before this investigation?

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

"Nope, said Cannon. Trump is still special. He has rights no one else has because he is an ex-president. She said so right out. “Based on the nature of this action,” Cannon wrote, “the principles of equity require the Court to consider the specific context at issue, and that consideration is inherently impacted by the position formerly held by Plaintiff.”

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Has this situation come up before where that might have been a consideration? Show me where the FBI has searched a former President's home looking for ANYTHING. That alone makes this a unique situation. Are you truly unable to see that or has your hatred for President Trump completely overshadowed your lack of common sense? A judge has apparently decided that a Special Master should be allowed to take a look at these things. Who are you or anyone else to decide that justice is wrong or will make a wrong decision? You on the Left are all about standing up for the law EXCEPT when a judge goes against what you want. Then that judge is lying, corrupt, deciding on circumstances where he has no business, something/ANYTHING to make that decision invalid to the Democratic base. This usually happens when it is something involving President Trump because you on the Left have decided HIS rights under the Constitution don't matter. Sorry my friend but he is a U.S. citizen and his rights do matter just as yours do.

Your asinine slanted article calls what Trump did as packing the court. Now please, pretty please with sugar on top, tell me that had a Democratic President been in office and did the same thing you would call that packing the court too. Every President has the power to full SCOTUS slots when they become available. Can we agree on that little but important point? Did Trump have that right or not? Would a Democratic President have filled the slots with Liberal Justices or not?

Please, for your own sanity take your TDS meds.

Dennis

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Are you for real?

The FBI gave back those documents that "might" have been client/attorney privileged. They were willing to allow the special master to review all documents not labeled "secret", or "top-secret".

YOU, on the other hand, start up with constitutional guarantees of liberty again and can't see past your nose that IF Chump had o*******wn the e******n on or before J** 6, as he desperately tried to do, YOUR constitutional guarantees of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would be in question! Dictators don't allow such liberties!

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

"Every President has the power to full SCOTUS slots when they become available."

Having problems with you spellchecker, are you?


Why don't you tell that to obstructionist Moscow Mitch?

"Now please, pretty please with sugar on top", tell me WHAT Democratic President did the same thing that the Republicans did during the Obama (TWO terms!) administration....

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

By denying Garland a nomination hearing seven months before the e******n, Mitch committed a t*****rous act, and changed the course of history. Not in a good way.
The man, like Trump, has no scruples. They want what they want and don’t care how they get it.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Nope little boo hoo, no problem with spell checker, just me not noticing I had made a typo and then not catching it before I clicked on Send. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for pointing out that mistake to me and others. Hopefully it will serve as a reminder to further check my replies more thoroughly before sending. I appreciate you letting me know.

What is it exactly, you want me to tell Mitch McConnell? If you have something to say to him then why is it you are not telling him yourself. Maybe if you spent more time doing something good for the country rather than being a little Pussified Snowflake and crying like a little girl you might get somewhere. For your benefit I just sent you another box of extra strength hankies for you to dry those little boo hoo eyes of yours.

Oh, before I sign off I know you would want me to point out your pesky little error, "Having problems with YOU spellchecker, are you?" Shouldn't it rightly be, with YOUR spellchecker? Just trying to help you out Slick.

As for the Republicans doing something during the Obama administration, wh**ever are you talking about? Can you be a bit specific rather than just pulling bulls**t out of the air expecting me to make a comment? What are you whining and crying about this time?

Dennis

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Nope, but I just read that it has been used a few times in the past.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Trump has been given preferential treatment by the FBI, the Justice department, and now Judge Cannon, in violation of her oath of office. This flies in the face of the long standing legal precedent of the rule of law—specifically, that no man is above the law, not even a former president.
Trump has has a history of sidestepping the law, and he continues to get away with it.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Lol ya BS, is that why the FBI raised Trump's property and took everything in those boxes?? You are delusional and full of crapola. Why do you always veer away from facts and make up b*******?

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

You must be somehow related to the Pinocchio Family. You continue almost daily to rant on and on about Trumping above the law while never mentioning Joe Biden, H****r B***n, HILLARY CLINTON who was described by James Comey as having committed numerous felonies that nobody will prosecute. Yet you are fixated on Trump. Amazing!!!

"Judge Cannon, in violation of her oath of office", you say. Explain exactly what she did that violated her oath of office. Surely as an adult you know that judges often give verdicts/judgements that others do not agree with. Take a good look at all of the Democratic judges who judgements that violate what Conservatives feel is their oath of office to the Constitution. Those judges are trying their best to enact laws from the bench. Yet not a single complaint from you. But let a Conservative judge give a judgement that in this case supports Trump asking for something here you are having a cow. You really need to look at the lying corrupt bulls**t you spew from a realistic viewpoint. Judges are not required to make judgements in favor of the DNC and against President Trump every time.

You tell us Trump has a history of sidestepping the law. Give us some examples. Show us evidence where he should have been convicted of something. What was it, the Russian Collusion bulls**t started by lying corrupt Hillary Clinton? Was that it? How come you are not up in arms over Hillary not being arrested by the FBI for having her attorney lie to the FBI? Why was Hillary, her attorney, Huma Abedin and Anthony Wiener given a pass over them having classified documents? Yet you want Trump in prison because he did. A bit one sided in your thought process aren't you?

Dennis

jcboy3

They agreed upon a 78-year old semi-retired judge to adjudicate 11,000 documents in less than 3 months?

I think the DOJ agreed just so they could clear that hurdle and appeal the whole mess of a decision.