None of us are surprised by this…
This is news but it’s hardly unexpected. Judge Cannon seems desperate to avoid trying this case. This isn’t justice. defendants aren’t the only ones with speedy trial act rights, we the people have them too. https://t.co/MbZNo7ripk
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) May 7, 2024
Judge Cannon’s rationale for indefinitely postponing Trump’s classified documents trial is that a large number of pretrial motions remain unresolved—a state of affairs she has literally engineered by failing to resolve them. https://t.co/sYCOcAl6KP
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) May 7, 2024
Four facts:
1. If Trump stole nat’l secrets, he must face justice.
2. Thanks to Judge Cannon, it now seems impossible for a trial to happen before the election.
3. If he’s reelected, he will never face trial.
4. Therefore, Trump must be defeated as a matter of nat’l security
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) May 7, 2024
And because I can’t leave you with just ugly for an open thread, here is Reggie practicing being cute as hell
You’re welcome
Open thead
RandomMonster
How does Jack Smith request a new judge?
KrackenJack
Although I’d prefer immediate action, I’ll defer to the prosecutor.
TBone
Every day, I am so grateful that President Biden is on the job. Every day. It’s my solace, by way of looking at the big picture.
We’re not going to let them have their evil way.
Michael Bersin
Maybe lightning will strike.
More weather
rikyrah
One of my favorite lawyers on TikTok did a video on Cannon and why her behavior is so out of pocket
tiktok.com/t/ZTLX3n6Y8/
Delk
Yikes. Steve Albini, RIP.
Robmassing
I worked at trial firms for 25 years and I don’t recall ever seeing a judge postpone a trial indefinitely. They at least set a new date.
brendancalling
So when will she be removed?
smith
Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor, is now arguing that Smith has enough ammunition to litigate for her recusal based on lack of impartially. Other legal commentators have pretty consistently said the she has to make a specific objectionable ruling before he has grounds for appeal. She’s solved this so far by simply not making rulings on any important points.
Steve in the ATL
@Robmassing: yes, this is unprecedented and legally indefensible
Steve in the ATL
@Delk: that’s a shame. He was awesome.
Old School
@Delk:
That’s a shame. A heart attack at 61.
Math Guy
The law is complex and I am not a lawyer. That said, as a citizen who tries to pay attention to current events and takes a little time to look things up, check multiple sources, etc., this looks like open corruption and incompetence. It is hard to maintain trust and faith in a system that allows this to happen. (I would say the same thing about the Supreme Court right now.)
To close on a lighter note, a bumper sticker I saw this morning: “We don’t have pets: we are a multi-species family.”
So true of our family – three homo saps and two cats.
gene108
The real issue to me is that will we be able to fix the tons of weak points Trump, and Republicans in their rush to defend him at all costs, have exposed in our system of government.
For example, a judge appointed by a President cannot be the trial judge for that president.
The president’s pardon power needs to be clearly defined. Trump dangled pardons in front of Manafort and Flynn to keep them from flipping.
It’s rather remarkable the USA went 230 or so years before electing someone to the presidency that wanted to subvert democracy and become a dictator.
WaterGirl
@Steve in the ATL: Do you think there’s much chance that Jack Smith will try to take this to the 11th circuit?
I know, I know, come at the king you best not miss. But it seems like the clock is running out, so maybe he has nothing to lose if they turn him down?
To me getting turned down by the 11th circuit doesn’t really change the course of events. Unless there’s a factor where it looks bad to take it to the 11th circuit and get turned down?
Omnes Omnibus
@smith: There is a point when the refusal to rule on anything should be enough. Bartleby shouldn’t be a judge.
schrodingers_cat
I wrote a poem for those who are thinking of voting for the man who preaches hate to win elections.
Choose Love not Hate
He is a liar,
He tells you what you want to hear
Open your eyes before it is too late
Don’t vote for hate
Even if you are not the target yet
Your number is coming up, just you wait.
Any guesses as to whom I am referencing here?
Melancholy Jaques
@Robmassing:
It is usually the procedure of the court, and most especially the federal courts, that new dates are set so that there is always a trial date for each case for scheduling and case management purposes.
As one old guy in the stands judging the shortstop, I think the motion to recuse should have been filed as soon as she was assigned. Her rulings in the prior case showed that she would invent rules to protect Trump. The standard is:
There was no downside to filing that motion. Would love to hear the discussions that ended with a decision not to file it because we know that those discussions took place.
Quadrillipede
I think he’ll need to speak to the Manager of the Supreme Court… 🤔
rikyrah
@gene108:
Will forever say that the Founding Fathers saw the Orange Menace coming, even 230 years ago.
What they never accounted for was an entire political party going against their oath to the Constitution to help the dictator. That’s where they messed up.
MazeDancer
Cannon is exactly the corrupt scum she has always been.
Stormy Daniels, OTOH, is surprising.
Having to give up her full ride to Vet school because she didn’t have the money to accept. Heart-breaking.
Becoming an exotic dancer, because where else is a 17-year-old gonna make those kinda bucks.
Submitting to Trump’s power play “I thought you were serious” and then shaking from the trauma afterwards. Shades of Harvey Weinstein.
She resonated with millions of women. Who vote.
Cacti
The federal judiciary is compromised. The only chance at any accountability for the fascist is from the states.
ETA: And even at the state level, it only takes one cultist for a hung jury.
rusty
The way to defeat Trump is at the polls. No court is going to do it for us. I don’t think Trumps legal antics are in the end are even going to be helpful to him. He is facing huge financial consequences from the defamation and fraud trials. His endless delays and appeals are burning enormous amounts of cash. Money that could have been used to campaign instead is paying lawyers. Despite the huge costs, the quality of his legal representation has been mediocre because of his behavior driving away more serious firms. In the current NYC trial, his antics have resulted in his legal team not getting the courtesy of knowing the order of witnesses to be called by the prosecution. This has comprised their ability to prepare for cross examination. Again, another example of his antics hurting his case. Realistically, even if every trial had gone forward and he lost them all, he wasn’t going to jail. He still would be the Republican candidate. So we need to work hard to defeat him at the polls. Then the money pipeline will dry up. He won’t be a candidate and there will be no reason for anyone else to fund his defense. A conviction will not be the one weird trick that wins this election. It will need to be defeat at the ballot box. Let’s move on.
smith
@Omnes Omnibus: Certainly there doesn’t seem to be any valid legal reason for the rulings on the pile of motions before her to be backed up. She cited that backlog as the reason to delay the trial indefinitely, but she is the cause of that backlog. It seems to me that the only reasonable conclusion is that she’s acting, or not acting, for political ends, and should be removed.
Trollhattan
File under “unsurprising news” that nevertheless is a tale of our times. Think November.
Brachiator
@gene108:
John Adams came close, with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
Melancholy Jaques
@rusty:
Could not agree more. What’s more, winning at the polls is something we, the people can do.
Manyakitty
Dang! Reggie is giving Cygnus a run for his money in the cuteness department ❤️.
TBone
@schrodingers_cat: 💙
geg6
OT, but word is that my university will be offering a buyout and, seeing that I’m a little more than a year away from full SS, I am seriously considering getting the hell out. I’ve done really well with my TIAA retirement account over the years, even during the horrible 2007-08 meltdown. And a year’s salary would be sweet, especially as I got quite a large salary bump this year. I heard they are still stuck on whether to pay out our full unused vacation and sick time accumulations. If they do, what a bonus! I have over 1000 hours of sick time accumulated and bump up against the allowable 30 days of vacation accumulation every month now that I have over 25 years in and get an extra day every month. Crossing my fingers for the final announcement, expected some time this week.
I told my boss that, if it was allowable, I’d stay until the first week of fall classes so as to not leave him the lurch for summer orientations and move-in. But I’m ready to be done with this and to move on to a much lesser challenge: part-time work with little thinking and no responsibility. Picture me: Walmart greeter extraordinaire. LOL!
Belafon
@brendancalling: After the Supreme Court makes the decision on whether she should be removed when a motion is filed by Smith.
artem1s
given what’s been revealed about her mob connections I’m betting there are a lot of people who don’t want to see her try this case. There are people who paid good money for her to be there for them when they need a softball judge. They don’t want her every action scrutinized – they need her to be under the radar. I think she trying to take the easy way out so she can keep her seat. I’m sure she values her current position enough not to risk it for such an unstable and unreliable person. Also,too I wouldn’t put it past her if she’s thinking this is just too much work – she may want her old cushy, easy life back.
frosty
@geg6:
Great news! Walmart will be lucky to have you LOL.
wombat probability cloud
@Omnes Omnibus: Thanks for the reference. It’s been many years since I read that story.
Old School
@geg6: I hope everything works out!
gene108
@rikyrah:
I don’t think they could’ve foreseen current state of affairs.
They didn’t have a lot of examples to work from of democratic governments being overthrown or subverted into dictatorships. Until the 20th century, this didn’t happen very often, if at all.
Dictatorships rise with some level of institutional support. Then the would-be dictatorships ruthlessly eliminates the opposition to establish control, and cows allies to fall in line or else.
Also, the Founders were all very much behind the idea of some type of representative government. They were willing to die to establish it. They inculcated this belief to future generations, until Trump.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@geg6: That’s a great deal. Mr DAW took a buyout when he retired too.
Balconesfault
It could be that these trial delays have a hidden benefit.
Eliminating the possibility of a not guilty verdict, or even a hung jury … which much of our corporate media would frame as a complete exoneration of Trump.
At least this reduces the potential for that level of gaslighting.
FastEdD
Loose Cannon makes my head explode, such that I can’t add anything to a conversation.
Ka blooey.
Bupalos
It’s a harsh reality we’re waking up to, but it was always a reality: There isn’t and really can’t be any full institutional check on any individual that holds the political support of a functional majority coupled with the rabid personal support of such a large minority.
Now hopefully Trump does not hold the political support of a functional majority. But if it turns out he does, I’m afraid we’ll find it would have been better not to bring any cases in the first place. It has raised the stakes.
TBone
A recent (2023) history lesson:
lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/scotus-just-issued-a-ruling-that-may-have-helped-jack-smith-in-his-tru…
caphilldcne
@Delk: goddammit. Ugh that just rocked me back. Wow I loved Big Black so much.
narya
@geg6: Do it!! Congrats!
hueyplong
@TBone: I’m going to go out on a limb and say lawandcrime.com underestimates the Supreme Court’s ability to argue that the public interest mandates a different result in Trump’s case (with, of course, no precedential effect).
Anonymous At Work
@gene108: The Founding Fathers didn’t want political parties and set up conflicting roles, thinking the institutions (and pro/anti-slavery regional conflict) would keep everyone in check. Then James Madison created a political party in order to achieve ratification. THAT was the error.
cmorenc
@Steve in the ATL:
If Smith does request Cannon’s removal to the 11th circuit, does he risk pissing off Judge Cannon and prejudicing her against the prosecution? Bwahahaha
MazeDancer
@geg6: What a great bonus!
Worry not about taking early Social Security. That extra money every month is worth it.
TBone
@hueyplong: of course. But this precedent regarding double jeopardy should be flung in the Supremacists’ faces forthwith.
hueyplong
@cmorenc: Haha, yes, you hate to toss away that extensive capital built up from studiously currying Cannon’s favor to date.
Math Guy
@geg6: I basically did the same thing 2 years ago: took an incentive (way less than my low salary) and started taking the state retirement. Then, a year later and after moving to MN, took a part-time teaching position at a local college as a sabbatical replacement. Then started ss in January when I became eligible for full-time benefits. My income now is more than when I worked full-time and I only teach 3 classes per year. One of the best decisions of my life.
gene108
@Brachiator:
No way will you convince me John Adams wanted to be a dictator like Trump does.
Even with the Alien and Sedition Acts, Adams was very pro-democracy based on what history he left behind.
Anonymous At Work
@smith: It’s a justifiable (legalese: “Colorable”) argument but not a slam-dunk. It sets up two lines of argument: she created the backlog purposefully and therefore must recuse due to bias OR she created the backlog because she doesn’t know how to resolve these issues and therefore must recuse due to lack of sufficient expertise.
HOWEVER, it is not compelling, in that an appeals court almost certainly must agree either substantively or out of shame at her behavior. THAT is the problem. Until she issues an order in obvious contradiction with established precedent or statutes, there’s no firm grounds to appeal.
rikyrah
@geg6:
I hope that you get the buyout with the $$$ for your unused days.
TBone
Connecting the dots. Third time’s the charm.
crooksandliars.com/2024/05/no-one-ever-mentions-aileen-cannons-mobbed
It’s like Clarence and Ginni. What do you think these two talk about?
hueyplong
@TBone: So far, they seem fairly immune to altered behavior when their corruption is thrown in their face. The only likely effect is for them to be even more irritated with the iconoclastic peasants’ disregard for the majesty of their betters.
TBone
@hueyplong: funny choice of words coincidence – I was just today reading up on the treason trial and beheading of Charles I in 1649.
“The king can do no wrong.” Oops!
gene108
@rusty:
His 2016 campaign was less organized and funded than Hillary’s. Thanks to Russian interference and a complicit media, he eked out a win.
Normal campaigning rules really don’t apply to Trump. Even during the 2016 primary, he avoided the meet and greet events that most Republicans go through to get votes – like eating corn dogs at the Iowa state fair – and still won handily.
Baud
@gene108:
He was helped by other factors besides those two, but I otherwise agree.
smith
@Anonymous At Work: Most of the online lawyers I’ve encountered agree with you. Kirschner is the one exception. You would think by now, however, that the members of the 11th Circuit would be more than adequately embarrassed by her behavior they’d be eager to make it stop.
hueyplong
@TBone: Charles I and the pig share a common view of Divine Right. It’s too much to hope Trump will meet a similar fate, but there’s a non-zero chance he could croak on his throne.
TBone
@Bupalos: except they are dysfunctional to the core.
TBone
@hueyplong: 💙 my dearest hope.
geg6
@rikyrah:
So do I!!!!!! I’m pretty excited either way. It’s been a real slog the last couple of years. I despise the new administration and what they are doing and I have had no qualms about saying so. I think they are ruining a formerly great institution. I am definitely ready to go and was only hanging on to wait for that full SS. Now I may not have to!
I am semi-serious about the Walmart greeter job, too. I can’t see me sitting at home all day and I don’t really have any hobbies because I’m not crafty or artistic and I hate gardening (which is a short season around here anyway). I just want something to get me out of the house a few days a week and to bring in a few extra bucks for my luxuries. I’m going to start looking around now to see what might suit me. I haven’t looked for a job for 26 years, so that will be interesting.
Ksmiami
@brendancalling: we the people can do it any time. She needs to be removed, arrested, hung – I don’t really care which method…frikkin traitor garbage
hueyplong
@TBone: Probably ranks second for me, just behind an unfortunate friendly fire incident in which a devoted MAGA has to live with his unintentional act of regicide.
Imagine the conspiracy theories.
TBone
Watching Walter Brennan play Judge Roy Bean on TCM.
“No friend of Lily Langtree goes around stealing horses.”
Belafon
@Anonymous At Work: So the founding fathers created political parties against the wishes of the founding fathers?
TBone
@hueyplong: you, sir, have admirable imagination!
Raven
So what are y’all gonna do when this motherfucker wins?
TBone
@Belafon: facepalm
Anonymous At Work
@Belafon: YUP. And remember that two Founding Fathers fought a duel to the death in part over how to interpret Originalist Intent. Oh, and 4-6 compromises in the document, mostly related to slavery.
TBone
@Raven: when he is appointed, I plan to be on the front lines. He will not “win.”
Raven
@TBone: and by “front lines” we mean what? Non-violent civil disobedience?
Ksmiami
@Balconesfault: nothing good comes from Cannon’s decision. Nothing.
Anonymous At Work
@smith: Omar Little once said, “Take a shot at the king, best not miss.” Jack Smith has one chance and he won’t waste it on a crap shoot. Cannon’s previous smackdown by the 11th Circuit was because her ruling was “Because the President is an extra special big boy who deserves to break crimes, anyone can contest a warrant and stop the underlying investigation pending federal court review.” 11th Circuit, on appeal, would either be left precedent that was beyond the pale, either a nakedly-partisan “The President can commit crimes” or an even-worse “Any suspect can halt a criminal investigation by filing a simple motion in any federal court.”
hueyplong
@Raven: If Trump wins, consoling oneself in I-Saw-It-Coming and told-you-sos is some thin gruel.
If the worst happens, I’m not going to look back and say I was insufficiently miserable May-November 2024.
Geminid
@Baud: I was reading Mangy Jay last yesr and she described some phenomenon as “multiply determined.” I had been trying to describe how Glenn Youngkin’s win was due to several factors which all had to be present for that result, and wham! Magdi Jacobs named the concept.
Jacobs is one of the reasons I’ve come to respect a good base of social science knowledge. Rachel Bitecofer is another
Ed. Magdi Jacobs moved to Pittsburgh in March and really likes the city.
Brachiator
@geg6:
Great news.
Sounds like this really works to your advantage.
Best of luck to you.
ETA. I was semi retired and then the company I worked for got bought out. I decided not to hang around and am nudging myself towards full retirement.
Steve in the ATL
@Raven: write a strongly worded letter to the editor of the New York Times. That’ll show ‘em!
geg6
@Geminid:
I saw that a while back. And she’s right. It’s a lovely place to live.
Raven
@Steve in the ATL: In all caps!
cmorenc
@Melancholy Jaques:
Also, recall the observation by Mr Dooley: “the court follows election returns” regarding the apparent about-face the Depression-era SCOTUS made post-1937 in upholding the Social Security Act, after many earlier 1930s decisions holding various FDR New Deal measures uncontitutional. Notably, the composition of SCOTUS in 1937 that did an abrupt turn-around was every bit as hard-core conservative relative to its times as the contemporary SCOTUS is in 2024. Overwhelming popular sentiment eventually erodes judicial intransigence.
At least, we can hope this will prove true (eventually) this time around, as it did in the late 1930s.
Old Man Shadow
I’m going to be optimistic today. It’s sunny, cloudless, 71 degrees. There is a neighborhood woodpecker hunting for critters to eat. 15 year-old canine lady is on a pillow curled up in my sweater taking a nap. I turn 50 in two days.
Things will work out.
mrmoshpotato
@TBone:
Amen.
Baud
@Raven:
Probably nothing. Age has it’s advantages. He’s a young person’s problem.
Brachiator
@gene108:
RE: No way will you convince me John Adams wanted to be a dictator like Trump does.
This is not pro democracy, and very much something that Trump would do.
MomSense
@schrodingers_cat:
Modi and Trump.
Central Planning
@hueyplong: By throne I hope you mean toilet.
MomSense
@geg6:
Hope it works out!!
Manyakitty
@schrodingers_cat: that last line is the kicker.
JPL
@geg6: How exciting! This fall Biden will probably be looking for door knockers and such. That’d keep you busy.
JPL
duplicate
Another Scott
@gene108:
I can be persuaded by many of your arguments, but not this one:
We have to count on judges being impartial. If they cannot be, then they need to be weeded out at the nomination and confirmation phase.
Judges have to rule on the law and often have to rule on regulations and other stuff even before they have a hypothetical indicted president. If we remove them from deciding a president’s guilt because s/he appointed him/her, why not remove them on deciding a government regulation s/he favors or opposes? Or other government policy?
It’s unworkable, and dangerous IMHO. There’s too much judge shopping as it is. If we cannot assume good-faith by judges, then it breaks public faith in the judiciary.
tl;dr – Remove Cannon for her actions/lack of actions in this case, not because TIFG appointed her.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
TaMara
@hueyplong: ❤️
hueyplong
@Central Planning: Indeed I do.
Feckless
They didn’t “just pull” that totally unqualified judge.
Canon is only there because Mitch McConnell got rid of the filibuster for lifetime judicial appointments.
I hate windsock Joe Scarborough, fake liberal.
Btw, WHAT IS THE DEM PLAN TO CORRECT THE JUDICIARY?????
Scout211
@geg6: Oooh, that sounds like it will work well for you. I hope it all works out.
Speaking of TIAA, if any of you were following my freak out about my husband’s former university switching their retirement plans from TIAA to Fidelity, I wanted to thank everyone for their input and suggestions. I talked with the advisor for the university plans and also talked with a TIAA person. We decided to stay with TIAA for now and we have a zoom appointment set to get that done so we are outside of the group that will transfer to Fidelity.
What a crazy way to treat faculty and retired faculty.
Mr. Bemused Senior
step 1: win elections.
Geoduck
Nixon probably would have been happy to be a dictator, if he thought for a minute he could actually get away with it.
Cheryl from Maryland
@Another Scott: Totally agree. We do not want to play Trump’s game of citing the party of who appointed a judge or the judge’s ethnicity as grounds for recusal.
Martin
@Another Scott: I would argue that a judge appointed by the defendant needs to recuse. If I were in jury selection and my boss was on trial, sure as shit I wouldn’t be on that jury.
Another Scott
@TBone: I haven’t read the link (thank you for it), but the excerpt makes me crazy when I think about how the various reports about “actual innocence” didn’t sway Scalia when it came to capital cases. Roughly, “It doesn’t matter if he’s actually innocent – what matters is if the trail and appeals courts and the jury did their job without breaking the law. Without a contrary showing, no new trial. NEXT!!” or some such thing.
(Yeah, I get the legal argument and can think of corner cases. But if Justice means anything, it means that actual innocence must matter a lot – and decisions must be based on not just were procedures followed well enough.)
Grr…,
Scott.
Gloria DryGarden
@geg6: instead of Walmart… maybe Costco? Target? Christmas retail. I’m in the anything but Walmart camp. I try really hard to not go there.
sdhays
@Feckless: Not only that, wasn’t she one of the nominees that did not receive a recommendation from the Bar Association? You would think there are enough Republican hacks who could at least pass the credentials “bar” that they wouldn’t have to scrounge for people who can’t even clear that hurdle, but you would be wrong.
What really comes down to is that Republican Senators were unwilling to enforce just about any standard upon Republican nominees. The opposite is not true.
lowtechcyclist
@geg6:
Good luck – hope everything works out in your favor!
Retirement is sweet.
If you become a Wal-Mart greeter, I know what we can do, we’ll have a greet-up! This would consist of a whole bunch of jackals stopping by your WallyWorld to be greeted by their newest greeter! ;-)
zhena gogolia
@schrodingers_cat: Very nice!
smith
Even Alito and Thomas can’t not notice the whirlwind the GQP is reaping now due to Dobbs.
JWR
How to get rid of Cannon, or other misbehaving federal judges. From the WH judicial page:
Okay, all well and good. And no 2/3 requirement. It continues:
Bwahahahaaaa! Who writes their material, anyway?
Omnes Omnibus
@Martin: The President isn’t the boss of any Article 3 judge.
Gloria DryGarden
@Baud: please say more about this:
( I need to understand, in hopes of getting clues where else we might make a difference in this upcoming election)
Another Scott
@Gloria DryGarden: My list:
Cheers,
Scott.
WereBear
I don’t think Reggie needs to practice. He seem quite skilled already.
Omnes Omnibus
@Another Scott: A 30 year hate campaign against HRC.
Geminid
@Feckless: You go first. What’s your plan to correct the judiciary? Besides hitting the Caps Lock.
Math Guy
@Gloria DryGarden: FOX
Glidwrith
@Martin: Agreed. It’s a similar dynamic if judge and prosecutor or prosecutor and defense have personal relationships and therefore conflicts of interest.
Sure Lurkalot
I’m probably not the only one who dreams that some ProPublica reporter has evidence of her actions being expressly and incontrovertibly dictated by a Federalist Society hack and just has one more source to check before hitting “publish”. Her thin resume seems to indicate that she’s too green to come up with all these delay tactics on her own.
Glidwrith
@Omnes Omnibus: Yet he holds the power to appoint to a higher level court.
Glidwrith
@Another Scott: 4. We elected a black man. A woman would be beyond the pale.
5. Rampant misogyny (see #4) – multiple reporters driving Clinton’s coverage were later found to be rampant sexual harassers/assault.
schrodingers_cat
@MomSense: I had written it for Modi supporters among my friends and family. But after I read it I realized that it applies to the Orange Menace as much as the Saffron Ogre.
schrodingers_cat
@Manyakitty: Its the truth though. RWNJs become more and more concentrated as they circle the drain.
rikyrah
@TBone:
Come sit by me.
Omnes Omnibus
@Glidwrith: A President has that power whether they initially appointed the judge or not. The boss analogy still fails.
lowtechcyclist
@Scout211:
I’m glad to hear that!
Citizen Alan
@Anonymous At Work: Eh. There was never a way we were not going to have political parties. The nature of Democracy means that whoever can cobble together 50% plus 1 gets to set the agenda. And the easiest way to do that is to form a group of like-minded people who share enough common views to reach that magic number.
pluky
@MazeDancer: I knew Ms. Daniels was smart, but I didn’t know about the ‘smart enough to get into Vet School’ part. Impressive! Factoid: it’s harder to get into Vet School than Med School.
Citizen Alan
@Another Scott: To me, it’s not that Trump appointed Cannon. It’s that he appointed her to sit in the District and Division where he was domiciled! Thereby insuring that she would probably be the one to draw any federal case against him. And she was nominated in the summer of 2020, at a time when it was imminently foreseeable that he would face federal litigation where her court would be the venue. It is still shocking to me that she didn’t recuse. Short of a case involving a family member or a long-term former client, I can’t think of a scenario that screams “appearance of impropriety” as much as this.
Citizen Alan
@Feckless:
At the moment, it seems to be:
Not sure how workable that is, but I’m not seeing any other ideas that aren’t on par with “wishing for a unicorn.”
Brachiator
@schrodingers_cat:
Good one.
schrodingers_cat
@zhena gogolia: Thanks, I am glad you liked it!
prostratedragon
@Omnes Omnibus: Intertwined with good ol’ mysogyny.
Manyakitty
@schrodingers_cat: one thousand percent. Good poem.
laura
@geg6: 🎶Go on, take the money and run!
Hat tip to Mr. Steve Miller
Gloria DryGarden
Thank you Dorothy Windsor.
I too don’t enjoy making fun of people whose bodies no longer function as well, and need protective garments
I’m sorry he can’t keep up with it, or make himself more pleasant in public, and if he could, he should, but I don’t like making fun of people for the indignities of an older body.
But his behaviors are fair game.
Ken In Hogtown
@geg6: Congrats! You can’t go wrong. We were faced with this exact situation 2 years ago: husband with 26 years in, not old enough to retire, but got the offer and the extra year of pay. Plus the sick and annual pay-out. It was a very wise decision with the state of higher ed now. You will be really happy to have done this!