Today Professor Heather Cox Richardson gives us a lesson on how the rule of law shifted greatly with Ford's pardon to Nixon. The most powerful snubbing of the law continued with Iran contra and now we see this fiasco with 45 and his mob of thugs! It is good the Justice Department is standing up to might with right but the fact remains, justice is NOT equal!
This is from a guy named Peter Vroom on Twitter. On that platform you can see pictures of her actual responses to the questionnaire and it's jaw-dropping:
Aileen Cannon, a 38 year-old lawyer with no judicial experience and limited resume, was handed a LIFETIME appointment as a federal judge just as Trump left office. Cannon's primary credentials for the job were apparently her young age and membership in the Federalist Society.
Her professional experience was so limited that she was forced to admit on her Sen Judiciary Comm questionnaire that she had never made any speeches, produced any reports, participated in any panel discussions, spoke at any conferences or written for any bar association.
In her twelve years as a lawyer, she published no writings of her own and just 3 writings done with colleagues at Gibson Dunn -- limited to promotional articles on cases handled by the firm for their own website.
In an attempt to show writing experience, Cannon listed 17 short articles from a 2-mo undergrad stint at El Nuevo Herald. ranging from "Prenatal Yoga" to "Flamenco: An Explosion of Energy and Passion." Cannon is unclear on whether she authored or simply edited the articles.
Finally, the questionnaire for a LIFETIME judicial appt asks Cannon to list all interviews she has given to the media. Cannon lists only her wedding article in a local magazine as her only media experience.
-Congress can impeach and remove but we do not (currently) have the votes and that's fraught with danger for future Congressional action should the GOP attain a sufficient majority. That leads us to...
-We create a blue tsunami in the November election with sufficient votes to make the statutory change. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ever we all desperately needed to answer the call to get out the vote, now is the time.
I am reading the stay. Man, it’s a hard read. Not really, but it gets bogged down in endless legal precedents. But that’s how the law is adjudicated. I suppose someone must read all those cited precedents. And when they read them, I guess there would be more precedents attached to the precedents to read and review. Why, this could and probably does go on forever.
I have taken issue with what appears to be a typo on the capitalized use of President. As I understand from my limited grade school education, (although the nuns told us in catholic school that we were at least two grades ahead of public school kids and I believed them because I was a believer), that capitalizing the word is correct only when referring to a specific president. (That’s lower case because it names no one.) I found the alleged error twice in section b when it referred to “a President.” But I could be mistaken.
It’s mind-boggling that a judge who came to her current post with NO prior judicial experience issued a ruling to halt the government’s investigation. Her action is blatant obstruction of justice in my opinion. And the darned puppet has a lifetime appointment to the bench !
I gather that her written ruling was so bad that I think it must have been purposive, not just a product of ineptness. Can't school people who are determined not to learn.
I've been appalled for decades by hugger-muggering people who cannily know that the *really* important thing is Power, not beauty or wonder or learning or getting things done. And I think Trump disproportionately appeals to such types, who then act out the bludgeoning dramas associated with those interests.
On the contrary, I hope it is her best work to date. She needs to be removed. (Isn’t there a precedent for removal?) But that’s what I said when Clarence Thomas was nominated. And Mary Ann is half correct it’s not only about power, it’s ultimately about money although she did say, “…bludgeoning dramas associated with those interests” which I assume to be money.
The same term limits would send Chris Murphy and Dick Blumenthal home. The term limits exist in elections. We don't like the red state choices, but the same strictures would apply to blue states.
And if the term limit became two terms, Grassley and McConnell would be gone (to be replaced by people who would be at least as bad since the same voters would elect similar or worse replacements in those states). At the same time, both of our Senators, as well as most of our Congressional team, would be gone with no guarantee that their seats would not be held by the GOP, given how close some of our elections are.
The gridlock is caused by those who elect people like Grassley and McConnell. Term limits would not change that.
Correct. Vote smart. I’m always perplexed by agendas that stay the course even though a wedge issue interferes with successful election. To win more, I believe one must compromise more. A recent example was the democratic Virginia governor answering a question about school library books and who gets to judge and he answered so wrong that he lost his position. The art of politicking is to carve a warm, responsive image even if it means taking a slight detour. Republicans take full advantage of wedge issues quite successfully. Just my opinion. I want us to win anyway possible. Not stand proudly and lose because he told the honest Abe truth.
Today Professor Heather Cox Richardson gives us a lesson on how the rule of law shifted greatly with Ford's pardon to Nixon. The most powerful snubbing of the law continued with Iran contra and now we see this fiasco with 45 and his mob of thugs! It is good the Justice Department is standing up to might with right but the fact remains, justice is NOT equal!
I remember that, even as a kid. My God, the nation did need to heal and Nixon needed to be held accountable.
Thank you for remembering Iran-Contra. I only know bad reasons for it being so much elided.
This is from a guy named Peter Vroom on Twitter. On that platform you can see pictures of her actual responses to the questionnaire and it's jaw-dropping:
Aileen Cannon, a 38 year-old lawyer with no judicial experience and limited resume, was handed a LIFETIME appointment as a federal judge just as Trump left office. Cannon's primary credentials for the job were apparently her young age and membership in the Federalist Society.
Her professional experience was so limited that she was forced to admit on her Sen Judiciary Comm questionnaire that she had never made any speeches, produced any reports, participated in any panel discussions, spoke at any conferences or written for any bar association.
In her twelve years as a lawyer, she published no writings of her own and just 3 writings done with colleagues at Gibson Dunn -- limited to promotional articles on cases handled by the firm for their own website.
In an attempt to show writing experience, Cannon listed 17 short articles from a 2-mo undergrad stint at El Nuevo Herald. ranging from "Prenatal Yoga" to "Flamenco: An Explosion of Energy and Passion." Cannon is unclear on whether she authored or simply edited the articles.
Finally, the questionnaire for a LIFETIME judicial appt asks Cannon to list all interviews she has given to the media. Cannon lists only her wedding article in a local magazine as her only media experience.
Holy crap. The Federalist Society? That’s it? And a handful of lifestyle articles she may or may not have written?
Lifetime appointments that are not open for review and termination was an unwise clause. That issue should be addressed.
There are two ways to address that:
-Congress can impeach and remove but we do not (currently) have the votes and that's fraught with danger for future Congressional action should the GOP attain a sufficient majority. That leads us to...
-We create a blue tsunami in the November election with sufficient votes to make the statutory change. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ever we all desperately needed to answer the call to get out the vote, now is the time.
I choose Column B and am throwing myself into helping accomplish that.
:O
I am reading the stay. Man, it’s a hard read. Not really, but it gets bogged down in endless legal precedents. But that’s how the law is adjudicated. I suppose someone must read all those cited precedents. And when they read them, I guess there would be more precedents attached to the precedents to read and review. Why, this could and probably does go on forever.
I have taken issue with what appears to be a typo on the capitalized use of President. As I understand from my limited grade school education, (although the nuns told us in catholic school that we were at least two grades ahead of public school kids and I believed them because I was a believer), that capitalizing the word is correct only when referring to a specific president. (That’s lower case because it names no one.) I found the alleged error twice in section b when it referred to “a President.” But I could be mistaken.
It is legalese at its finest, but I get that the writers must cross all the t's and dot all the i's. I think they did that.
It’s mind-boggling that a judge who came to her current post with NO prior judicial experience issued a ruling to halt the government’s investigation. Her action is blatant obstruction of justice in my opinion. And the darned puppet has a lifetime appointment to the bench !
Well, as Flip Wilson once (almost) said:
“There go the judge. There go the judge…”
Or so one would hope...
I gather that her written ruling was so bad that I think it must have been purposive, not just a product of ineptness. Can't school people who are determined not to learn.
I've been appalled for decades by hugger-muggering people who cannily know that the *really* important thing is Power, not beauty or wonder or learning or getting things done. And I think Trump disproportionately appeals to such types, who then act out the bludgeoning dramas associated with those interests.
The written ruling was roundly criticized, and not just by conservatives. I hope that wasn’t her best work.
On the contrary, I hope it is her best work to date. She needs to be removed. (Isn’t there a precedent for removal?) But that’s what I said when Clarence Thomas was nominated. And Mary Ann is half correct it’s not only about power, it’s ultimately about money although she did say, “…bludgeoning dramas associated with those interests” which I assume to be money.
"What is the good?"
"Always and everywhere, that depends on the criteria for judgment."
Trump, “I love the poorly educated”.
The same term limits would send Chris Murphy and Dick Blumenthal home. The term limits exist in elections. We don't like the red state choices, but the same strictures would apply to blue states.
And if the term limit became two terms, Grassley and McConnell would be gone (to be replaced by people who would be at least as bad since the same voters would elect similar or worse replacements in those states). At the same time, both of our Senators, as well as most of our Congressional team, would be gone with no guarantee that their seats would not be held by the GOP, given how close some of our elections are.
The gridlock is caused by those who elect people like Grassley and McConnell. Term limits would not change that.
Correct. Vote smart. I’m always perplexed by agendas that stay the course even though a wedge issue interferes with successful election. To win more, I believe one must compromise more. A recent example was the democratic Virginia governor answering a question about school library books and who gets to judge and he answered so wrong that he lost his position. The art of politicking is to carve a warm, responsive image even if it means taking a slight detour. Republicans take full advantage of wedge issues quite successfully. Just my opinion. I want us to win anyway possible. Not stand proudly and lose because he told the honest Abe truth.