This is a rare day off for me. Thanks for ruining it with context and thoughtful analysis. I hope Fani Willis brings RICO charges while you’re on vacation.
I don't believe that Ken White is mentioned, not even once, in the Constitution, so does anything he say even count? Is he even accounting for how hard everyone else is wish-casting in this case?
Thanks Ken. A much needed counter to a lot of the punditry I've seen.
I don't think the greatest risk is Judge Cannon making some insane ruling (like the much-discussed judgment of acquittal). Rather, I think the greatest risk is that she will be overly-accommodating of what defense Trump wants to put on. I expect Trump's team will want to put on a "flood the zone with shit" strategy to try to thoroughly confuse the jury with red herring arguments and evidence. If the judge does not aggressively police this, I could see the prosecutors having a difficult time.
This is a really good example of where the law and how it is applied runs strongly into political reality. While I am more than happy to agree with what you have said - the facts of the matter is that both the left and right are absolutely losing all faith in our institutions, and arguments like this are a clear reason why. I absolutely have zero faith in the Supreme Court. If someone tells me the Supreme Court ruled on something and thus it's constitutional, my reaction is "No, it's not constitutional - it's just approved by the Federalist Society." Legal arguments and nuance are all well and good - but how applicable will your legal arguments be if the country rips itself apart in civil war?
I can't say I enjoy when you take a particularly encouraging wind from my sails, but I always learn something (or several things) when you do. Thanks for sharing your insight, expertise, and experience.
Jun 13, 2023·edited Jun 13, 2023Liked by Ken White
re "You’re probably saying “wow, that (b)(1) sure seems broad", no, by literal meaning it is exclusively not "broad", that is to say it only applies to he-pronoun judges.
I think the problem here is we are asking the law to do something it's not (and shouldn't be) designed to do -- settle the question of whether a popular political leader has behaved badly.
Criminal law isn't really designed to make sure that people who behave badly get their just desserts. Rather, it's designed to balance society's interest in detering crime with the need to limit the incredible power of the government to take away people's liberty. As such the law creates all sorts of ways in which the defendant is advantaged in a criminal case *knowing* that means guilty parties might go free if a district court judge makes bad calls (while if they make bad calls for the prosecution the defense can get the verdict overturned). And that's the way things should work.
Yup, sometimes the guilty party goes free but any other system would allow the government to (even more) use it's superior resources to subject even a wrongly accused person to a neverending hell of appeals and motions they don't have the resources to fight (and may even be waiting in jail).
Ofc it's disgusting that Cannon seems to be biased the way she is but that's the thing. But judges are humans who are full of bias and that's why we give the defendant so much more ability to appeal than the prosecution. I mean looking through history it's full of biased judges.
Unfortunately, the public is going to see this as reaching a decision on whether Trump *deserves* to be in prison for his behavior and won't see a not guilty verdict as a thing that sometimes happens even for obviously guilty individuals.
God, I am going to sound like a full-fledged protuberance on the MAGA hind-quarters… but the case for recusal is simply not there.
The relevant Scalia quote makes it clear that questionable jurisprudence, litigating party “preference” (in remark or action) and even outright stupidity - are not grounds for impartiality …principally because they are not extrajudicial.
Live by the sword, die by the sword… thanks Damocles.
Thinking of changing my online accounts display names to "Unlettered Peasant" and using in my email signature
My uncle who works for Nintendo disagrees with your interpretation of the recusal statue
This is a rare day off for me. Thanks for ruining it with context and thoughtful analysis. I hope Fani Willis brings RICO charges while you’re on vacation.
After this disappointment I think our only solution now is hoping the Marshal of the Supreme Court will arrest Trump.
(Runs away)
I don't believe that Ken White is mentioned, not even once, in the Constitution, so does anything he say even count? Is he even accounting for how hard everyone else is wish-casting in this case?
Thanks Ken. A much needed counter to a lot of the punditry I've seen.
I don't think the greatest risk is Judge Cannon making some insane ruling (like the much-discussed judgment of acquittal). Rather, I think the greatest risk is that she will be overly-accommodating of what defense Trump wants to put on. I expect Trump's team will want to put on a "flood the zone with shit" strategy to try to thoroughly confuse the jury with red herring arguments and evidence. If the judge does not aggressively police this, I could see the prosecutors having a difficult time.
I think the 11th Circuit will remove her by issuing a writ of primae nocta.
This is a really good example of where the law and how it is applied runs strongly into political reality. While I am more than happy to agree with what you have said - the facts of the matter is that both the left and right are absolutely losing all faith in our institutions, and arguments like this are a clear reason why. I absolutely have zero faith in the Supreme Court. If someone tells me the Supreme Court ruled on something and thus it's constitutional, my reaction is "No, it's not constitutional - it's just approved by the Federalist Society." Legal arguments and nuance are all well and good - but how applicable will your legal arguments be if the country rips itself apart in civil war?
I can't say I enjoy when you take a particularly encouraging wind from my sails, but I always learn something (or several things) when you do. Thanks for sharing your insight, expertise, and experience.
Mr. White,
I need to inform you that among we peasants there are some who are lettered.
I'll have you know that I indeed learned my ABCs using patches that my u2nlettered, craftsman grandfather hand-carved out of rich Corinthian leather.
Be that as it may, Thank You for the ongoing legal education you provide all peasants, be they lettered or unlettered. 😉
Ken, you never fail to disappoint, and I suspect you like being that way. But it's a good thing I'm a masochist, because the truth hurts.
What if the recusal motion took the form of this Dr. Seuss book (just replace "Marvin K. Mooney" with "Judge Cannon")?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nB0QpwRgV4
(Sighs) "No, there is no recusal scenario that gets you out of the Kobayashi Maru ... "
re "You’re probably saying “wow, that (b)(1) sure seems broad", no, by literal meaning it is exclusively not "broad", that is to say it only applies to he-pronoun judges.
I think the problem here is we are asking the law to do something it's not (and shouldn't be) designed to do -- settle the question of whether a popular political leader has behaved badly.
Criminal law isn't really designed to make sure that people who behave badly get their just desserts. Rather, it's designed to balance society's interest in detering crime with the need to limit the incredible power of the government to take away people's liberty. As such the law creates all sorts of ways in which the defendant is advantaged in a criminal case *knowing* that means guilty parties might go free if a district court judge makes bad calls (while if they make bad calls for the prosecution the defense can get the verdict overturned). And that's the way things should work.
Yup, sometimes the guilty party goes free but any other system would allow the government to (even more) use it's superior resources to subject even a wrongly accused person to a neverending hell of appeals and motions they don't have the resources to fight (and may even be waiting in jail).
Ofc it's disgusting that Cannon seems to be biased the way she is but that's the thing. But judges are humans who are full of bias and that's why we give the defendant so much more ability to appeal than the prosecution. I mean looking through history it's full of biased judges.
Unfortunately, the public is going to see this as reaching a decision on whether Trump *deserves* to be in prison for his behavior and won't see a not guilty verdict as a thing that sometimes happens even for obviously guilty individuals.
God, I am going to sound like a full-fledged protuberance on the MAGA hind-quarters… but the case for recusal is simply not there.
The relevant Scalia quote makes it clear that questionable jurisprudence, litigating party “preference” (in remark or action) and even outright stupidity - are not grounds for impartiality …principally because they are not extrajudicial.
Live by the sword, die by the sword… thanks Damocles.