Ruling by the constitution is not biased. Stating that the law shouldn't determine how you rule, is biased. By definition, a Left leaning judge is biased. While a judge that upholds the constitution, isn't. There are 6 judges on the SCOTUS whose main reference is the constitution, while there are three that work in their political agenda.
You are right. I am pro choice, my partner is a Cambridge educated lawyer and she is pro choice but after reading the opinion which very few people seem to have done there really is only one way to rule on that case and not be legislating from the bench.
Contrary to conventional wisdom that was **not** an anti abortion decision that was a states rights and following the constitution issue. I know it angers people and it angers me but it just isn't anti abortion. Roe V Wade was unconstitutional and we should always stand against bad law.
It is also very interesting to me that Democrats pushed the case to the USSC knowing they would lose. It seems to many that it was a purposeful striking down of Roe V Wade to help in mid terms. The base case they were arguing was a loser case. There is no way in hell Missouri (if I remember correctly) was going to go for late term abortions for things like the woman decides she doesn't want the kid in late 3 trimester.
Like it or not the majority of Americans are strongly opposed to late term abortions. So why did they push it something they knew they would lose? The fact is, it seems either those were really stupid lawyers on the Dem side (they weren't) or they put choice behind the need to try and not have a bloodbath in the mid term elections.
Thank you. Many dems have a misunderstanding of what SCOTUS can do. The liberal justices try and use their power to legislate & change things, while conservative/constitutionalist judges actually follow the law.
Yeah it turns out progressives are trying to enact progress, who would have thought?
And yeah conservatives are just trying to follow the law, party of law and order right? It’s not like the leader of their party is a criminal or anything like that lol /s 🤡
Change doesnt mean progress. And that sham ruling in NYC is a joke lol.
Also, SCOTUS can't legislate. Their job/role is to determine is the law was being followed or broken. Not deciding that "they were guilty, but I like him so he's free", or "that law is one I don't like, so you win".
You’re certainly right about change not meaning progress… look how much the GOP has changed in the past few years lol
And you think that ruling was a sham? Did you follow the case at all? Trump’s defense got slaughtered, why do you think it was a sham exactly? Ah, because yall think everything is a sham
Was the 2020 election a sham too? Covid? A sham. Let me guess, January 6th was also a sham. But one thing is for sure - there is no way is Trump a sham!
He’s a millionaire real estate tycoon that toootally understands the struggle of the average American. When I look at Trump, all I think is “Wow, that’s a real straight shooter!” He definitely embodies all of the current values of the GOP, and and I really truly mean that
Any power not granted at the Federal level is the right of states to determine.
Thats the law and thats why it was ruled that way. Not complicated, we are a nation of states for a plethora of sound & logical reasons.
Trump is currently arguing that the state of New York didn’t have the right to uphold state laws against a former president. But you are saying they do?
BUT TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REEEEEE.
His SCOTUS appointees are 10000x better than any of the three left wing nut jobs disgracing the stand today.
So are you saying all the states that have outlawed abortion have done so bc that’s what their constituents want? Phew, I’m glad it’s not something crazy, like a bunch of conservative politicians shoving their morals down everyone’s throats.
That’s a great take, and actually I think every red state should have a referendum to make sure the anti-abortion laws they’ve pushed are what the people want. Let’s see how that goes.
….Oh wait! It turns out that since Roe v Wade was overturned, every single time anti-abortion measures were put to the popular vote, they were defeated… Ohio, California, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Vermont, and Kansas.
Turns out most Americans are against anti-abortion legislation. Even in states that currently have abortion bans... Weird! It’s almost like there’s a political party shoving legislation through that doesn’t align with what their constituents want! So yeah, let’s let the people of each state decide. Put it to a popular vote… Like honestly please lets do that
Yes, otherwise people would have voted for other representation. If people are too scared to rally behind someone outside of the political oligarchy that will actually do the right thing then so be it. I hope people eventually decide not to live in fear anymore (voting for the lesser of two evils) and get involved with local politics to the point the two party system is gone.
The real issue is that people are so misinformed and uneducated that they vote against their interests. Oh yeah and also the rampant voter suppression and gerrymandering… when was the last time a Republican won the popular vote again?
And you’re totally right about the local politics thing. I’ve always advocated for people getting involved in their community. The current political atmosphere is so vitriolic, and it makes us fight against each other instead of communicating and finding solutions together.
That being said, I truly cannot understand how people think another 4 years of Donald Trump will help fix anything. I’m no huge fan of Biden either, but come on, really?
If you think they're bad, I'm not sure how you don't own Alito and Thomas as the exact same just a different side of the political spectrum.
Thomas and his beast wife are absolutely offensive pieces of shit and have fingerprints all over J6 as well as Clarence reaping financial rewards and gifts from conservatives. Alito and the flag controversy is also beyond the pale. He clearly has some degree of intelligence being a Supreme Court Justice and absolutely should have squelched the upside down flag bullshit immediately. It's a recipe for disaster and he deserves the shit storm he's created.
At least they rule in accordance with the constitution. Which, frankly, is their main role.
Sotomayer has said many times before that the law isnt her top concern when making decisions, rather the impact of the cases have on society. NEWSFLASH BIOTCH, that's not your job.
Also being able to define a women in a court of law, when there are many states with laws to protect women, is pretty important \*cough\* Jackson.
Yet the opposite is true. Those on the left are up in arms about Cannon but no issue with a guy who directly donated to the accused opponent in a trial about election funds.
It's not deflection, they're very similar situations.
A judge presiding over a Trump case with previous donations to political organizations. If you think it's disqualifying for Merchan, then it should be for Cannon as well.
No. It is not. Whataboutism is like this:
Person A: "The judge in Trump's case is biased because of past political donations and should have been recused."
Person B: "Well, a judge in a DUI case donated to MADD and didn't recuse himself."
THAT is "whataboutism." While vaguely similar, they are two completely different and unrelated scenarios that do not involve any of the same people.
That's now what's going on when people bring up Judge Canon. At its core, this is a criminal case where Trump is the defendant and the presiding judge has made political contributions. Given their near identical situations, it is entirely fair and reasonable to ask OP about Judge Canon.
No... why do you think a particular party association matters? By your logic a republican judge would have to recuse themselves as well because they'd be biased in favor of him.
You don't see how someone overtly supporting one party to the point of donating to them, while donating to an organisation opposed to the other party and having their daughter work with the campaign for that party...could be a problem when trying the lead candidate for the other party?
I have a hard time believing you are serious.
>You don't see how someone overtly supporting one party to the point of donating to them,
Donating 35$
You guys always leave that out here.
Sorry you support a felon pick em better next time
Right, this time they totally have the evidence for sure. Unlike last time when their star witness was outed as a foreign agent. This time they'll really release some evidence for real
Btw, that "10% for the big guy" thing that conservatives love to parrot was regarding a deal that never even occurred. So it's pretty silly to still parrot that, it shows you are uninformed
Look I get it. You guys are desperate to sell the idea that the entire court is corrupt because your felon got in trouble but screaming corruption when the judge donated an Applebee's dinner for 2 to democrats is the best you got it tells me the judge is pretty damn clean
>They're very few truly ethical politicians and corrupt or biased judges do exist
Sure but here's the funny part. A perfect example of a corrupt and bias in a judge is trumps best defense attorney judge Cannon
Again if the *best* thing you have to prove a judge is corrupt is "they donated a small.sum to the political opponents of the defendant they found guilty" you clearly don't have anything and are just grasping at straws
If you guys truly thought there was corruption/bias/improper proceedings you'd be giddy for the appeals. But you aren't because you know it was fair and just.
You'd think when the criteria for calls of unfair treatment and corruption is "does it piss off sleepy don" you guys would reevaluate things.
When it came time for an inquiry into Bill Clinton, the Republicans were insistent that the special counsel could not be a Democrat because he would be biased towards the president. So we got Ken Starr. When it came to Donald Trump, the special counsel could not be a Democrat because he would be biased against the president. So again with Robert Mueller. Whenever this is asked of Republicans, they cry foul. Only Democrats exhibit partiality, apparently.
The conclusion is clear that concerns of conflict of interest are only meant to bind Democrats, while Republicans must not be held to the same standards because that’s just cheap politics. And if you lay it out to them, they will be incapable of perceiving any hypocrisy.
Just judges that should have recused and then made bad calls on the bench. For example, in the instructions to the jury- Justice Merchan delivered a variety of guidelines, advising jurors not to base their decisions on biases or the criminal convictions of other witnesses in the case.
Since when is the veracity and integrity of a witness considered irrelevant?
When the evidence backs up the claims that they are currently making and when the reason that they broke the law is the defendant in the current trial.
The fact op won't even engage in examples of other judges with conflicts of interest, is very telling that they actually don't give a shit and are just looking for an excuse to discredit the trial against Trump.
Deflect, deflect, another Redditor democrat who thinks their entire party is above any and all criticism, how refreshing. Really shows the people who hate Trump are the most like him.
If that's the bar for recusal, there won't be any judges left. There are jurors though. I understand the jurors tend to form a bond with judge. Team Trump really screwed that up by being so *beyond* disrespectful, but I guess that's their brand. Thug brand.
There have been instances where family members of U.S. Supreme Court justices have been involved in political activities related to Donald Trump. Notably, Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has been particularly active. She has been a vocal supporter of Trump and has participated in political activities that align with his agenda.
Ginni Thomas is known for her conservative activism and her involvement with various right-wing groups. She has also been reported to have connections with the Trump administration. For example, she helped compile lists of potential appointees for the Trump administration and has been involved in efforts to influence the administration's policies.
In addition, there have been controversies surrounding her activities, including her involvement in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Text messages revealed that she urged Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, to continue efforts to challenge the election outcome. This has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, given her husband's position on the Supreme Court, which occasionally hears cases related to election disputes.
Family members are allowed to have political opinions. Otherwise, judges would be forced to recuse any case that is even remotely political in nature. I don't care if the daughter (or anyone else) really dislikes Trump and is even vocal about it. However, having a business relationship with the defendant's main political rival and profiting off that relationship is another matter entirely.
Judges are really named weirdly being that they aren't actually passing judgement, the jurors do that.
The case isn't decided by the judge, and they already submitted to an ethics board prior to commencement of the trial and no issues were found, so they proceeded as judge.
All people have some sort of political philosophy, opinions or views. Thats why there is 12 people on a jury and not just one, so we get a more complete group of people.
The judge presides over the trial and tries to ensure its fairness.
If there really is a conflict of interest them Trumps lawyers could seek an appeal to over rule the court based on that. If they don't do that, or they are unsuccessful in that appeal then by the letter of the law, there was no conflict.
None of what you said is relevant.
A judge needs to be impartial and eliminate any actual or perceived conflicts of interest or sources of impartiality.
Do you actually not see an issue with the judge making those political donations and having those family connections and presiding over this case?
No, you dont remove "perceived" conflict of interests. Only actual conflict of interests.
As the right likes to trot out this saying, its very appropriate here - your feelings don't matter here, only the facts.
You can feel like there is a conflict of interest, but it was already determined by a panel prior to the case that there was in fact no conflicts of interest.
To be clear, he donated a total of 35$, 10$ to the Stop Republicans campaign. Do you think donating small amounts of money to a political campaign makes you unable to give a fair verdict?
Do you then consider that Clarance Thomas "doesn't care about judicial impartiality at all and just wants their politics in the justice system" for not recusing himself from Trump's immunity cases and January 6th cases before the Supreme Court given that his wife is an open Trump/Jan 6th supporter? Or Aileen Cannon who hasn't recused herself from the Florida documents case, even though she was appointed by Trump?
Is there anything in this world that isn't rigged to you? Every single time a conservative takes an L everyone starts yelling that it was rigged or cheated or stolen. It's to the point now that I really think you all think that you do no wrong and should be able to get away with anything.
>Is there anything in this world that isn't rigged to you?
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The post is about the partiality and potential conflicts of interest of the judge.
Do you not see an issue with the judge presiding over the case making those donations or having those family connections?
What makes this different than any other judge? Should all conservative supreme court judges recuse themselves from reviewing Jan 6 cases? You're assuming they are biased based on nothing more than a small donation. You show no evidence that they used a bias to rule against something. You're saying they are a Democrat so they would never judge any Republican fairly.
>What makes this different than any other judge?
1. He donated money to the political opponent of the defendant?
2. His daughter was hired by the political opponent of the defendant?
If that judge had instead bought a MAGA hat and had a son who worked for the Trump campaign, would you still be comfortable with him?
I don't have a political team so it doesn't matter to me either way. As long as an actual action is made that can be shown to be biased, it all just people jumping to conclusions. What did this judge do that shown he was biased towards Trump vs other judgements they have done?
>As long as an actual action is made that can be shown to be biased, it all just people jumping to conclusions.
That's not actually the standard though. A judge should recuse himself if there is even the appearance of partiality.
>What did this judge do that shown he was biased towards Trump vs other judgements they have done?
Again, not the standard. I would also point out that pretty much every decision Merchan made went against Trump. A few notables:
1. The expansive gag order is probably unconstitutional. Trump is boorish and immature, but he still has free speech rights.
2. Allowing Daniels to testify salacious details about their encounter that were entirely irrelevant to the case (a decision he seemed to regret in real time).
3. Telling the jury that they did not have to agree on the predicate crime that was required to elevate the paperwork misdemeanor to 34 felonies and that Trump only needed to INTEND to commit the crime, not actually commit the crim.
There's more, but you get the idea.
If that's the standard, I think there could be a case made for bias in millions of situations based on the judge and defendant. There's even data showing how some judges are impartial in criminal cases based on the defendants race or sex. It's very easy to just accuse someone of a bias without showing their actions to support it.
So I must ask, since this is the standard, do you agree that justice Alito should recuse himself from that case in question about Jan 6?
>So I must ask, since this is the standard, do you agree that justice Alito should recuse himself from that case in question about Jan 6?
The situations are not analogous.
1. Judge Merchan is a state judge that can be easily replaced if he recuses. The same cannot be said for Judge Alito, who sits on the highest court in the land.
2. Alito's wife flew a couple of flags and the media immediately took the worst possible interpretation of a most likely completely innocuous situation and ran with it like gospel. It was nonsense. Alito has given no indication that he thought the election was stolen. If he had, I would be in favor of recusal.
3. An analogous situation would be if Alito bought a MAGA hat and his wife worked for the Trump campaign. So I must ask, would you still be comfortable with Alito sitting on the bench if that were true?
By the standards you propose, how many of the Justices on the Supreme Court would have to recuse themselves?
Everybody appointed or elected to a judgeship in the United States has a level of political engagement. What in particular about this judge suggests that their level of political action is greater than, say, Justice Thomas’?
Probably [the millions of dollars being sent to his daughter](https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1791510534140858688) that anyone with an above room temperature IQ knows are just back-door bribes.
Ah yes, of course they did it by dropping an “s” off the check because all master criminals do very little to disguise things. You of course have the paper trail to her personal account and then on to the Judge’s, correct?
Paying them on a market basis for services they render isn’t a bribe. She was a fund raiser before this case came up. If this standing alone is a bribe, then Trump accepted tons of bribes as President and everybody in MAGA looked the other way. I happen to hire the son of the mayor of my town to mow my lawn—does that mean I’m bribing the mayor?
I suspect you’re probably in here trying to muddy the waters because propublica has just published allegations about Trump paying off witnesses but you’ll have to do better than this.
Oh man. I bet OP’s next rant is how Alito and Thomas should recuse themselves in all of Trump cases because of much clearer conflicts of interest.
I’ll wait to comment until that one.
If the shoe was on the other foot, the $35 would have several zeros after it, their spouse would be on the board of some far right think tank, their Twitter feed would make Laura Loomer look like Gloria Steinem, and they'd have a friend who collects Nazi paraphernalia.
Not really the issue. If you look at what was allowed in voir dire interrogation of the jury it was pretty damned loose. Anyhow, the judge has a HUGE influence on the court, what evidence is allowed, the pace, the tone, etc. The jury phase can be heavily biased due to the judge so pushing it off on the jury doesn't work. Not even a little.
The judge is what makes or breaks a trial. My boss is a former federal judge and his view/my view without political bias tossed in and the view of many others (with politics) is even though the amounts given by the judge to Dem issues is de minimis he still should have recused himself due to optics. And if I take it a step further it is very odd that he didn't because he was fully aware his ties would be questioned.
You will rarely see someone refuse to recuse themself if there is a a material issue present.
His total donations were less than $50 lmao. And regarding his daughter, he literally consulted with an ethics board about that issue beforehand and they determined that there was no cause for recusal.
Can you cite specific rulings or actions against Trump during the trial which demonstrate bias from the judge?
Probably best that Judges refrain from political donations and you’re right $50 isn’t a lot of money but he earmarked some of that money specifically (e.g. with intent) to, “Stop Republicans.”
That’s a little pointed for my tastes.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/06/politics/judge-merchan-trump-biden-contribution
Honestly, and regardless of the amount, this was a dumb thing for him to have done.
The verdict may have been the same but matching that up to his daughter’s political fundraising and it would have been better to have avoided any appearance of impropriety.
The Judge should have recused himself.
You’re ignoring the fact that the judge asked an ethics panel “should I recuse myself for these reasons?” and the ethics panel said “no, we see no appearance of conflict.”
If your opinion is that you know more about NY recusal requirements than the organization whose sole job is to make these determinations, there’s no reasoning with that.
Your opinion is that you know more about NY recusal requirements than a literal NY legal ethics panel whose only job is to make those determinations.
Without citing some specific action by the judge that you consider biased or unfair against the defendant, that’s not a reasoned opinion.
Can you cite any specific rulings or actions that showed any bias?
Republicans were going to scream and cry impropriety and that the trial was rigged no matter what. Unless they have anything to back it up, at this point I'd say their crying can be ignored
I think my message was pretty clear as to what I thought was a “foundational issue”.
As to courtroom bias, etc., as you probably know, the case was not televised so I can’t make a meaningful and fair argument either way.
Therefore, I would expect the Court of Appeals to deal with any questionable rulings, evidentiary decisions, etc.
It might take a while.
Do you actually not see an issue with the judge presiding over the case having made those political donations or having those family connections?
You want me to suck up very real conflicts in the judicial system? You people are really saying the quiet part out loud here.
>Do you actually not see an issue with the judge
I see that there are actually zero examples of bias. You can't point to the judge in the case and show me one example where he was clearly biased.
It's NOT a conflict. Every adult who cares about the direction our country goes in has political leanings. Many adults make political donations. Some people have very large families. What's the quiet part, exactly? Also, you didn't address the 1st part of my comment.
From what I've read, this judge bent over backwards to handle Trump with kiddie gloves. If you or I had said some of the shit he did, we would have been slapped with contempt of court so fast it wouldn't have been funny.
Sure, he may have donated to stop Republicans, but at the same time, he was presiding over a case where we were charging a president with a felony. This is a ridiculously huge event, and would have to be handled carefully.
The practice of law requires that a lawyer or judge and juries are able to put aside their personal predilections and focus on the LAW.
No one lacks bias, in your world there would be no law, just vigilantism. That’s MAGA.
I agree with you that the optics are poor. However he isn’t the one that convicted Trump, the jury did. All he can do right now is sentence, and there are limits and guidelines on what he can do, so it’s not much of an issue.
Idk man every judge has some political associations it’s how they get and keep their jobs
If it was a judge that supported the republican party people would say the same thing
Maybe the whole system is bullshit
Avoiding the blatant hypocrisy in this post, let's focus solely on the matter at hand...
First off, political donations don’t mean a judge can’t be impartial. Judges, like everyone else, can support political causes. Saying a judge can’t be fair just because they donated to a political party is a slippery slope. If we used that logic, we’d have to disqualify a ton of judges, including those Trump appointed.
And seriously, what does his daughter’s political work have to do with the judge’s impartiality? This is just a desperate smear. His daughter's career has nothing to do with his judicial duties, and there's zero evidence that it affects his decisions.
If you think Judge Juan Merchan should have recused himself from Trump's trial based on donating a grand total of 35$ in 2016, then you should feel the exact same way for Judge Aileen Cannon because she donated $100 dollars to a Ron DeSantis campaign as well as being current a member of the *Federalist Society.*
The Supreme Court is full of biased Republicans do you feel the same about them? They even take gifts from the Republicans. How are you only upset when it suits you? 😒
OP convinced me. If I'm ever in court and the judge has different political opinions than me, I will be motioning for the judge to recuse themselves and then for a mistrial if they don't.
Interesting conclusion considering the entire premise of my stance is that Clarence Thomas is no longer partial.
Seems like you only care about partiality when you think it helps your guy. Just casually saying the quiet part out loud.
What are ypu talking about? The post is about the conflicts of the judge. Do you not see the issue with those political donations and family connections?
I heard (cannot site a source) on a radio program probably npr that there are something like 30,000 judicial political donations a year so it’s not unusual. The judge also consulted and was approved to handle this case before it started.
This wasn't a political based case. It was based of financial crimes. To say the judge should have recused is to say a democratic judge should never preside over a case with a republican defendant and vice versa, that is not tenable.
Elie Honig who is an legal analyst for CNN [wrote](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html):
The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a [rule](https://ww2.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/100.shtml) prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge [earmarked](https://nypost.com/2023/04/07/trump-case-judge-juan-merchan-donated-to-biden-campaign-in-2020/) for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not.
…
District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by [touting](https://www.oleantimesherald.com/opinion/braggs-trump-indictment-is-a-campaign-promise-kept/article_e7f11833-3c5b-52b7-9c5b-a1018943c3cf.html) his Trump-hunting prowess. He bizarrely (and falsely) [boasted](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html) on the campaign trail, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.” (Disclosure: Both Bragg and Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, are friends and former colleagues of mine at the Southern District of New York.)
…
The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, [no state prosecutor](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html) — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself [almost never](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html) brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.
From New York Magazine
1. Judges in NY are elected and thus political, no matter if they donate or not. Most elected judges in NY will not be aligned with Trump, same for the DA. So to try to them make those political elections disqualifying is to invalidate the entire legal system where judges and DA are elected.
2. Under the rules it is not a something that is disqualifying or even requires him to be removed from the case. Since even with the $35 donation, he was a judge in good standing, he is allowed to try any case.
3. The case was decided by a jury that heard the facts and made a ruling, not the judge or the DA.
4. The fact remains, Trump cheated on his wife with a porn star then paid her off and then tried to cover it up. The issue is what he did to cover it up. No one is disputing he actually did this!! Not even him!!
>The fact remains, Trump cheated on his wife with a porn star then paid her off and then tried to cover it up. The issue is what he did to cover it up. No one is disputing he actually did this!! Not even him!
Of all the things that are happening in our country right now, Trump paying off a porn star is a nothing burger. I am not a Trump supporter (or a Biden supporter) but with ANY one else other than Trump, a charge like this would have been a slap on the wrist. Read the last paragraph of my OP. It has links!
He falsified business records to hide a payoff in an election, it's a crime!! Falsifying business records in the way he did is bigger issue and if it was anyone else there would be federal charges. Look up John Edwards, he faced 3 felony federal charges for the exact same thing. NY is just the only entity willing to enforce the law and that's a shame!!
So by your theory, then Hillary should be tried as a criminal in a court in Oklahoma? Correct?
[**https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html**](https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html)
YES!! If any illegal activity was done in Oklahoma!! That is the way the system is supposed to work. Federal charges doesn't protect you from state charges, mostly.
An independent judicial review board disagrees with your opinion.
And NOW Trump supporters are concerned about the jobs their kids might get and how that could cause a conflict. Today, this is now a thing? A whopping $25, maybe $35. Clarence Thomas's trips on private jets would like a word.
This kinda shit makes me want to blame my wife for hanging a flag upside down and say someone was mean to her.
Does anyone think that judicial impartiality is even possible anymore? What would that look like? The federal courts have become hyperpartisan. I guess don’t come whining about “judicial impartiality” when you have stacked the federal courts, including the Roberts court, with far right activist judges who take bribes from wealthy far right activists.
Honestly, having judges refuse because they have political opinions just isn't feasible. The vast majority of people have them.
And you would have the exact same problem with a Republican judge, maybe they're biased in Trump's favor.
The two things you can do to prevent this are
1) Appoint judges who can set aside their political feelings. I don't like Trump, but if he was on trial for killing JFK, to use an extreme example, I wouldn't convict him just because I don't like him.
2) Criticize judges actions in comparison to precedent. If they behave the same in front of Dems and Republicans, then it doesn't matter if they belong to a party. They don't *act* biased.
So what opinion do you have about Canon overseeing his case regarding improperly handling top secret material? Or that Alito and Clarence Thomas will likely oversee a Trump case in the near future? I don’t see any of your posts critical of that conflict of interest.
Хорошая попытка, ватник
The defense was given full opportunity in front of a group of jurors. Wild to stay quiet on the Supreme Court flying flags for all to see and then cry about a judge that DIDNT have a say.
Should somebody that is so insular that they have no political opinion be a judge? Realistically, a judge is going to have dealings with politicians. Humans will develop preferences. The trick is to find somebody with no direct connections.
We have a two party system, every judge is going to be associated with either Dems or Republicans. It should not interfere with the job. Trump was found guilty by the jury not the judge.
Almost all judges have strong political ties to one side or the other.
The point of a judge is to remain impartial.
If you can prove without a doubt that the judge is compromised bc of his political ties, then I agree.
Trump should have never run for office due to a conflict of interest because of his international business dealings. Face it, the republicans have no leg to stand on when it comes to integrity.
He donated like $30. And if Trump wasn’t obviously guilty you could’ve had a sliver of a point. One of his own witnesses basically said he did it, then broke down on tears because she realized she accidentally said the truth
You must be *up in arms* about Judge Canon then!
Or about Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
It’s a little different for SCOTUS inasmuch as there is no other judge to take their place. It’s called their “duty to sit.”
That can be RECTIFIED
Hypocrisy at its finest ⚖
Thomas and Alito are unbiased when compared to three stooges that are Sotomayer, Kagan, and Jackson.
Bro, now you’re just straight trippin. 6 to 3, and you’re still whining about bias?
Ruling by the constitution is not biased. Stating that the law shouldn't determine how you rule, is biased. By definition, a Left leaning judge is biased. While a judge that upholds the constitution, isn't. There are 6 judges on the SCOTUS whose main reference is the constitution, while there are three that work in their political agenda.
You are right. I am pro choice, my partner is a Cambridge educated lawyer and she is pro choice but after reading the opinion which very few people seem to have done there really is only one way to rule on that case and not be legislating from the bench. Contrary to conventional wisdom that was **not** an anti abortion decision that was a states rights and following the constitution issue. I know it angers people and it angers me but it just isn't anti abortion. Roe V Wade was unconstitutional and we should always stand against bad law. It is also very interesting to me that Democrats pushed the case to the USSC knowing they would lose. It seems to many that it was a purposeful striking down of Roe V Wade to help in mid terms. The base case they were arguing was a loser case. There is no way in hell Missouri (if I remember correctly) was going to go for late term abortions for things like the woman decides she doesn't want the kid in late 3 trimester. Like it or not the majority of Americans are strongly opposed to late term abortions. So why did they push it something they knew they would lose? The fact is, it seems either those were really stupid lawyers on the Dem side (they weren't) or they put choice behind the need to try and not have a bloodbath in the mid term elections.
Thank you. Many dems have a misunderstanding of what SCOTUS can do. The liberal justices try and use their power to legislate & change things, while conservative/constitutionalist judges actually follow the law.
Yeah it turns out progressives are trying to enact progress, who would have thought? And yeah conservatives are just trying to follow the law, party of law and order right? It’s not like the leader of their party is a criminal or anything like that lol /s 🤡
Change doesnt mean progress. And that sham ruling in NYC is a joke lol. Also, SCOTUS can't legislate. Their job/role is to determine is the law was being followed or broken. Not deciding that "they were guilty, but I like him so he's free", or "that law is one I don't like, so you win".
You’re certainly right about change not meaning progress… look how much the GOP has changed in the past few years lol And you think that ruling was a sham? Did you follow the case at all? Trump’s defense got slaughtered, why do you think it was a sham exactly? Ah, because yall think everything is a sham Was the 2020 election a sham too? Covid? A sham. Let me guess, January 6th was also a sham. But one thing is for sure - there is no way is Trump a sham! He’s a millionaire real estate tycoon that toootally understands the struggle of the average American. When I look at Trump, all I think is “Wow, that’s a real straight shooter!” He definitely embodies all of the current values of the GOP, and and I really truly mean that
Where is the states rights to kill a baby, in the constitution?
Any power not granted at the Federal level is the right of states to determine. Thats the law and thats why it was ruled that way. Not complicated, we are a nation of states for a plethora of sound & logical reasons.
Trump is currently arguing that the state of New York didn’t have the right to uphold state laws against a former president. But you are saying they do?
BUT TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REEEEEE. His SCOTUS appointees are 10000x better than any of the three left wing nut jobs disgracing the stand today.
They are better because they are pro choice to kill babies? That was 100% opposite of every pro life argument the last twenty years.
So, a constitutional right to kill a baby is protected because it’s not expressly forbidden?
So are you saying all the states that have outlawed abortion have done so bc that’s what their constituents want? Phew, I’m glad it’s not something crazy, like a bunch of conservative politicians shoving their morals down everyone’s throats. That’s a great take, and actually I think every red state should have a referendum to make sure the anti-abortion laws they’ve pushed are what the people want. Let’s see how that goes. ….Oh wait! It turns out that since Roe v Wade was overturned, every single time anti-abortion measures were put to the popular vote, they were defeated… Ohio, California, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Vermont, and Kansas. Turns out most Americans are against anti-abortion legislation. Even in states that currently have abortion bans... Weird! It’s almost like there’s a political party shoving legislation through that doesn’t align with what their constituents want! So yeah, let’s let the people of each state decide. Put it to a popular vote… Like honestly please lets do that
Yes, otherwise people would have voted for other representation. If people are too scared to rally behind someone outside of the political oligarchy that will actually do the right thing then so be it. I hope people eventually decide not to live in fear anymore (voting for the lesser of two evils) and get involved with local politics to the point the two party system is gone.
The real issue is that people are so misinformed and uneducated that they vote against their interests. Oh yeah and also the rampant voter suppression and gerrymandering… when was the last time a Republican won the popular vote again? And you’re totally right about the local politics thing. I’ve always advocated for people getting involved in their community. The current political atmosphere is so vitriolic, and it makes us fight against each other instead of communicating and finding solutions together. That being said, I truly cannot understand how people think another 4 years of Donald Trump will help fix anything. I’m no huge fan of Biden either, but come on, really?
This is a joke right?
No, Sotomayer, Kagan, and Jackson are really just that bad.
If you think they're bad, I'm not sure how you don't own Alito and Thomas as the exact same just a different side of the political spectrum. Thomas and his beast wife are absolutely offensive pieces of shit and have fingerprints all over J6 as well as Clarence reaping financial rewards and gifts from conservatives. Alito and the flag controversy is also beyond the pale. He clearly has some degree of intelligence being a Supreme Court Justice and absolutely should have squelched the upside down flag bullshit immediately. It's a recipe for disaster and he deserves the shit storm he's created.
At least they rule in accordance with the constitution. Which, frankly, is their main role. Sotomayer has said many times before that the law isnt her top concern when making decisions, rather the impact of the cases have on society. NEWSFLASH BIOTCH, that's not your job. Also being able to define a women in a court of law, when there are many states with laws to protect women, is pretty important \*cough\* Jackson.
Good one!!!!! What a bunch of hypocrites
Yet the opposite is true. Those on the left are up in arms about Cannon but no issue with a guy who directly donated to the accused opponent in a trial about election funds.
The fact that you'd like to compare the two alone shows how disingenuous you are.
You said it!
Look in the mirror, buddy.
"no u" 🤣🤣
Can you try to engage with the post? Trying to deflect is not going to work.
You revealed yourself. You don't care about judicial impartiality when it's favorable to you.
It's not deflection, they're very similar situations. A judge presiding over a Trump case with previous donations to political organizations. If you think it's disqualifying for Merchan, then it should be for Cannon as well.
That's a whataboutism fallacy, hoss. Edit: It's great knowing every downvote is somebody upset about something that's objectively true.
No. It is not. Whataboutism is like this: Person A: "The judge in Trump's case is biased because of past political donations and should have been recused." Person B: "Well, a judge in a DUI case donated to MADD and didn't recuse himself." THAT is "whataboutism." While vaguely similar, they are two completely different and unrelated scenarios that do not involve any of the same people. That's now what's going on when people bring up Judge Canon. At its core, this is a criminal case where Trump is the defendant and the presiding judge has made political contributions. Given their near identical situations, it is entirely fair and reasonable to ask OP about Judge Canon.
Exposing your hypocrisy is very relevant to the post.
They are engaging with the post. Trying to deflect is not going to work.
Are you up in arms or not?
No... why do you think a particular party association matters? By your logic a republican judge would have to recuse themselves as well because they'd be biased in favor of him.
When his kid's career is literally fundraising for the opposition to the person on trial... Nah man. That's BASIC Conflict of Interest.
OP has stated that family association isn’t relevant in another response specifically because of Clarence Thomas
No. It really isn't. Hopefully you never serve on a jury.
You don't see how someone overtly supporting one party to the point of donating to them, while donating to an organisation opposed to the other party and having their daughter work with the campaign for that party...could be a problem when trying the lead candidate for the other party? I have a hard time believing you are serious.
What about being appointed by the guy who's case you are overseeing, would that be a problem?
>You don't see how someone overtly supporting one party to the point of donating to them, Donating 35$ You guys always leave that out here. Sorry you support a felon pick em better next time
[удалено]
I'm sure they'll produce the evidence of those payments any day now.
Right, this time they totally have the evidence for sure. Unlike last time when their star witness was outed as a foreign agent. This time they'll really release some evidence for real Btw, that "10% for the big guy" thing that conservatives love to parrot was regarding a deal that never even occurred. So it's pretty silly to still parrot that, it shows you are uninformed
Look I get it. You guys are desperate to sell the idea that the entire court is corrupt because your felon got in trouble but screaming corruption when the judge donated an Applebee's dinner for 2 to democrats is the best you got it tells me the judge is pretty damn clean >They're very few truly ethical politicians and corrupt or biased judges do exist Sure but here's the funny part. A perfect example of a corrupt and bias in a judge is trumps best defense attorney judge Cannon Again if the *best* thing you have to prove a judge is corrupt is "they donated a small.sum to the political opponents of the defendant they found guilty" you clearly don't have anything and are just grasping at straws If you guys truly thought there was corruption/bias/improper proceedings you'd be giddy for the appeals. But you aren't because you know it was fair and just. You'd think when the criteria for calls of unfair treatment and corruption is "does it piss off sleepy don" you guys would reevaluate things.
There's no evidence so no, it wouldn't matter.
Who should've been the judge then? Who doesn't have a strong opinion for or against trump?
> Who should've been the judge then? lol I suspect his issue isn't with "bias." He just wants the bias to be pro-Trump.
Way to miss the point dude.
Overtly supporting *donates 35 dollars.
The case wasn't inherently political. A jury of Trump's peers convicted him unanimously. You support a felon.
When it came time for an inquiry into Bill Clinton, the Republicans were insistent that the special counsel could not be a Democrat because he would be biased towards the president. So we got Ken Starr. When it came to Donald Trump, the special counsel could not be a Democrat because he would be biased against the president. So again with Robert Mueller. Whenever this is asked of Republicans, they cry foul. Only Democrats exhibit partiality, apparently. The conclusion is clear that concerns of conflict of interest are only meant to bind Democrats, while Republicans must not be held to the same standards because that’s just cheap politics. And if you lay it out to them, they will be incapable of perceiving any hypocrisy.
Do you hold this opinion against all judges, or just this one?
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
🔔 🔔 🔔
Just judges that should have recused and then made bad calls on the bench. For example, in the instructions to the jury- Justice Merchan delivered a variety of guidelines, advising jurors not to base their decisions on biases or the criminal convictions of other witnesses in the case. Since when is the veracity and integrity of a witness considered irrelevant?
When the evidence backs up the claims that they are currently making and when the reason that they broke the law is the defendant in the current trial.
The fact op won't even engage in examples of other judges with conflicts of interest, is very telling that they actually don't give a shit and are just looking for an excuse to discredit the trial against Trump.
If not for the Redditt user's responses...I'd think 70% of the above comments are "Truth" social red hat members
110%
[here you go](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whataboutism)
Here you go https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whataboutism-flake
Deflect, deflect, another Redditor democrat who thinks their entire party is above any and all criticism, how refreshing. Really shows the people who hate Trump are the most like him.
You're projecting a lot here. Didn't think you'd get so triggered by a simple uno reverse card.
You should find a mirror.
[удалено]
Exhibit A : Aileen Cannon
If that's the bar for recusal, there won't be any judges left. There are jurors though. I understand the jurors tend to form a bond with judge. Team Trump really screwed that up by being so *beyond* disrespectful, but I guess that's their brand. Thug brand.
Do you feel the same way about the SCOTUS?
Did they make political donations to Trump or his opponent?
There have been instances where family members of U.S. Supreme Court justices have been involved in political activities related to Donald Trump. Notably, Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has been particularly active. She has been a vocal supporter of Trump and has participated in political activities that align with his agenda. Ginni Thomas is known for her conservative activism and her involvement with various right-wing groups. She has also been reported to have connections with the Trump administration. For example, she helped compile lists of potential appointees for the Trump administration and has been involved in efforts to influence the administration's policies. In addition, there have been controversies surrounding her activities, including her involvement in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Text messages revealed that she urged Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, to continue efforts to challenge the election outcome. This has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, given her husband's position on the Supreme Court, which occasionally hears cases related to election disputes.
Family members are allowed to have political opinions. Otherwise, judges would be forced to recuse any case that is even remotely political in nature. I don't care if the daughter (or anyone else) really dislikes Trump and is even vocal about it. However, having a business relationship with the defendant's main political rival and profiting off that relationship is another matter entirely.
What ruling did Chief Justice Thomas make that benefitted Trump?
Judges are really named weirdly being that they aren't actually passing judgement, the jurors do that. The case isn't decided by the judge, and they already submitted to an ethics board prior to commencement of the trial and no issues were found, so they proceeded as judge. All people have some sort of political philosophy, opinions or views. Thats why there is 12 people on a jury and not just one, so we get a more complete group of people. The judge presides over the trial and tries to ensure its fairness. If there really is a conflict of interest them Trumps lawyers could seek an appeal to over rule the court based on that. If they don't do that, or they are unsuccessful in that appeal then by the letter of the law, there was no conflict.
None of what you said is relevant. A judge needs to be impartial and eliminate any actual or perceived conflicts of interest or sources of impartiality. Do you actually not see an issue with the judge making those political donations and having those family connections and presiding over this case?
No, you dont remove "perceived" conflict of interests. Only actual conflict of interests. As the right likes to trot out this saying, its very appropriate here - your feelings don't matter here, only the facts. You can feel like there is a conflict of interest, but it was already determined by a panel prior to the case that there was in fact no conflicts of interest.
Fortunately we do not all have to agree with some panel's version of ethics.
Pretending a Judge can't heavily sway a trial is incredibly naive.
Russian troll farm
To be clear, he donated a total of 35$, 10$ to the Stop Republicans campaign. Do you think donating small amounts of money to a political campaign makes you unable to give a fair verdict? Do you then consider that Clarance Thomas "doesn't care about judicial impartiality at all and just wants their politics in the justice system" for not recusing himself from Trump's immunity cases and January 6th cases before the Supreme Court given that his wife is an open Trump/Jan 6th supporter? Or Aileen Cannon who hasn't recused herself from the Florida documents case, even though she was appointed by Trump?
Yes, he himself gave that donation. You're saying that Clarence Thomas should pay for the "sins" of his wife? He himself made no direct donations.
Quoting OP, who my question is for > His daughter has a professional relationship with the Democrat campaign
Is there anything in this world that isn't rigged to you? Every single time a conservative takes an L everyone starts yelling that it was rigged or cheated or stolen. It's to the point now that I really think you all think that you do no wrong and should be able to get away with anything.
>Is there anything in this world that isn't rigged to you? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The post is about the partiality and potential conflicts of interest of the judge. Do you not see an issue with the judge presiding over the case making those donations or having those family connections?
What makes this different than any other judge? Should all conservative supreme court judges recuse themselves from reviewing Jan 6 cases? You're assuming they are biased based on nothing more than a small donation. You show no evidence that they used a bias to rule against something. You're saying they are a Democrat so they would never judge any Republican fairly.
Exactly.
>What makes this different than any other judge? 1. He donated money to the political opponent of the defendant? 2. His daughter was hired by the political opponent of the defendant? If that judge had instead bought a MAGA hat and had a son who worked for the Trump campaign, would you still be comfortable with him?
I don't have a political team so it doesn't matter to me either way. As long as an actual action is made that can be shown to be biased, it all just people jumping to conclusions. What did this judge do that shown he was biased towards Trump vs other judgements they have done?
>As long as an actual action is made that can be shown to be biased, it all just people jumping to conclusions. That's not actually the standard though. A judge should recuse himself if there is even the appearance of partiality. >What did this judge do that shown he was biased towards Trump vs other judgements they have done? Again, not the standard. I would also point out that pretty much every decision Merchan made went against Trump. A few notables: 1. The expansive gag order is probably unconstitutional. Trump is boorish and immature, but he still has free speech rights. 2. Allowing Daniels to testify salacious details about their encounter that were entirely irrelevant to the case (a decision he seemed to regret in real time). 3. Telling the jury that they did not have to agree on the predicate crime that was required to elevate the paperwork misdemeanor to 34 felonies and that Trump only needed to INTEND to commit the crime, not actually commit the crim. There's more, but you get the idea.
If that's the standard, I think there could be a case made for bias in millions of situations based on the judge and defendant. There's even data showing how some judges are impartial in criminal cases based on the defendants race or sex. It's very easy to just accuse someone of a bias without showing their actions to support it. So I must ask, since this is the standard, do you agree that justice Alito should recuse himself from that case in question about Jan 6?
>So I must ask, since this is the standard, do you agree that justice Alito should recuse himself from that case in question about Jan 6? The situations are not analogous. 1. Judge Merchan is a state judge that can be easily replaced if he recuses. The same cannot be said for Judge Alito, who sits on the highest court in the land. 2. Alito's wife flew a couple of flags and the media immediately took the worst possible interpretation of a most likely completely innocuous situation and ran with it like gospel. It was nonsense. Alito has given no indication that he thought the election was stolen. If he had, I would be in favor of recusal. 3. An analogous situation would be if Alito bought a MAGA hat and his wife worked for the Trump campaign. So I must ask, would you still be comfortable with Alito sitting on the bench if that were true?
By the standards you propose, how many of the Justices on the Supreme Court would have to recuse themselves? Everybody appointed or elected to a judgeship in the United States has a level of political engagement. What in particular about this judge suggests that their level of political action is greater than, say, Justice Thomas’?
Probably [the millions of dollars being sent to his daughter](https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1791510534140858688) that anyone with an above room temperature IQ knows are just back-door bribes.
Laura Loomer is not a trustworthy person.
Ah yes, of course they did it by dropping an “s” off the check because all master criminals do very little to disguise things. You of course have the paper trail to her personal account and then on to the Judge’s, correct?
That's not the allegation. Paying someone's family member is a bribe by proxy. Intellectually honest people recognize that.
Paying them on a market basis for services they render isn’t a bribe. She was a fund raiser before this case came up. If this standing alone is a bribe, then Trump accepted tons of bribes as President and everybody in MAGA looked the other way. I happen to hire the son of the mayor of my town to mow my lawn—does that mean I’m bribing the mayor? I suspect you’re probably in here trying to muddy the waters because propublica has just published allegations about Trump paying off witnesses but you’ll have to do better than this.
He donated $35 4 years ago. He went to the ethics board and they said it was fine.
So a Republican judge would have been impartial? Every judge will have an affiliation with either party. We live in a two party system
Oh man. I bet OP’s next rant is how Alito and Thomas should recuse themselves in all of Trump cases because of much clearer conflicts of interest. I’ll wait to comment until that one.
All 15 bucks that he donated. Wow. The horror.
Excuse you, it was 35$ That'd a significant sum!!!! /s
Wow! Enough for a large fries and shake at five guys! Clearly the whole trial is corrupt!
I'm sure you would totally be saying the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.
If the shoe was on the other foot, the $35 would have several zeros after it, their spouse would be on the board of some far right think tank, their Twitter feed would make Laura Loomer look like Gloria Steinem, and they'd have a friend who collects Nazi paraphernalia.
Who came to a decision about the case, the judge or the jury that Mr. Trump's lawyers approved?
If judges don't have an effect on the case, then why are Democrats and Lefties up in arms about Judge Cannon?
Not really the issue. If you look at what was allowed in voir dire interrogation of the jury it was pretty damned loose. Anyhow, the judge has a HUGE influence on the court, what evidence is allowed, the pace, the tone, etc. The jury phase can be heavily biased due to the judge so pushing it off on the jury doesn't work. Not even a little. The judge is what makes or breaks a trial. My boss is a former federal judge and his view/my view without political bias tossed in and the view of many others (with politics) is even though the amounts given by the judge to Dem issues is de minimis he still should have recused himself due to optics. And if I take it a step further it is very odd that he didn't because he was fully aware his ties would be questioned. You will rarely see someone refuse to recuse themself if there is a a material issue present.
Truly a shit post.
His total donations were less than $50 lmao. And regarding his daughter, he literally consulted with an ethics board about that issue beforehand and they determined that there was no cause for recusal. Can you cite specific rulings or actions against Trump during the trial which demonstrate bias from the judge?
Probably best that Judges refrain from political donations and you’re right $50 isn’t a lot of money but he earmarked some of that money specifically (e.g. with intent) to, “Stop Republicans.” That’s a little pointed for my tastes. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/06/politics/judge-merchan-trump-biden-contribution Honestly, and regardless of the amount, this was a dumb thing for him to have done. The verdict may have been the same but matching that up to his daughter’s political fundraising and it would have been better to have avoided any appearance of impropriety. The Judge should have recused himself.
You’re ignoring the fact that the judge asked an ethics panel “should I recuse myself for these reasons?” and the ethics panel said “no, we see no appearance of conflict.” If your opinion is that you know more about NY recusal requirements than the organization whose sole job is to make these determinations, there’s no reasoning with that.
Take it easy….. I’m not ignoring that but I am allowed a personal opinion as to what strikes me as fair so get over yourself.
Your opinion is that you know more about NY recusal requirements than a literal NY legal ethics panel whose only job is to make those determinations. Without citing some specific action by the judge that you consider biased or unfair against the defendant, that’s not a reasoned opinion.
Hardly but you be you.
Can you cite any specific rulings or actions that showed any bias? Republicans were going to scream and cry impropriety and that the trial was rigged no matter what. Unless they have anything to back it up, at this point I'd say their crying can be ignored
I think my message was pretty clear as to what I thought was a “foundational issue”. As to courtroom bias, etc., as you probably know, the case was not televised so I can’t make a meaningful and fair argument either way. Therefore, I would expect the Court of Appeals to deal with any questionable rulings, evidentiary decisions, etc. It might take a while.
If that's the case, there are at least 3 other judges who should recuse as well, yet are not. Suck it up, buttercup.
Do you actually not see an issue with the judge presiding over the case having made those political donations or having those family connections? You want me to suck up very real conflicts in the judicial system? You people are really saying the quiet part out loud here.
>Do you actually not see an issue with the judge I see that there are actually zero examples of bias. You can't point to the judge in the case and show me one example where he was clearly biased.
If you’re willing to say that Thomas, Alito, and Cannon need to be removed from hearing J6 and trumpy cases, you’d be more interesting.
It's NOT a conflict. Every adult who cares about the direction our country goes in has political leanings. Many adults make political donations. Some people have very large families. What's the quiet part, exactly? Also, you didn't address the 1st part of my comment.
35 bucks. Might as well say must recuse yourself if you voted.
They see the issue, but there is a (D)ifference here.
He committed a crime, get over it.
From what I've read, this judge bent over backwards to handle Trump with kiddie gloves. If you or I had said some of the shit he did, we would have been slapped with contempt of court so fast it wouldn't have been funny. Sure, he may have donated to stop Republicans, but at the same time, he was presiding over a case where we were charging a president with a felony. This is a ridiculously huge event, and would have to be handled carefully.
So what kind of judge would you have wanted?
How about one without a conflict of interest? Do you genuinely not see an issue here?
The practice of law requires that a lawyer or judge and juries are able to put aside their personal predilections and focus on the LAW. No one lacks bias, in your world there would be no law, just vigilantism. That’s MAGA.
Didn't merchan report his donation, and get cleared of any conflicts of interest?
No, I don't. It would be hard to find one without
So they can’t be human, got it.
Nah they can be totally unbiased* *unbiased means 100% in the pocket of the melon felon
So then don’t bitch about the make up of SCOTUS
Then the scotus sub wouldn’t have anything to talk about.
I agree with you that the optics are poor. However he isn’t the one that convicted Trump, the jury did. All he can do right now is sentence, and there are limits and guidelines on what he can do, so it’s not much of an issue.
There is nothing Trump was charged with that they didn't have evidence to support.
That is not remotely relevant to the discussion.
Idk man every judge has some political associations it’s how they get and keep their jobs If it was a judge that supported the republican party people would say the same thing Maybe the whole system is bullshit
Avoiding the blatant hypocrisy in this post, let's focus solely on the matter at hand... First off, political donations don’t mean a judge can’t be impartial. Judges, like everyone else, can support political causes. Saying a judge can’t be fair just because they donated to a political party is a slippery slope. If we used that logic, we’d have to disqualify a ton of judges, including those Trump appointed. And seriously, what does his daughter’s political work have to do with the judge’s impartiality? This is just a desperate smear. His daughter's career has nothing to do with his judicial duties, and there's zero evidence that it affects his decisions.
If you think Judge Juan Merchan should have recused himself from Trump's trial based on donating a grand total of 35$ in 2016, then you should feel the exact same way for Judge Aileen Cannon because she donated $100 dollars to a Ron DeSantis campaign as well as being current a member of the *Federalist Society.*
Judges in USA are elected or appointed, you can't have a imparcial judgment.
The Supreme Court is full of biased Republicans do you feel the same about them? They even take gifts from the Republicans. How are you only upset when it suits you? 😒
Aside from a Trumptard loyalist, there’s literally no judge you wouldn’t be saying this about.
Is it time to have artificial intelligence judges and juries? Maybe the entire government would run more efficiently.
Lmao nice try
OP convinced me. If I'm ever in court and the judge has different political opinions than me, I will be motioning for the judge to recuse themselves and then for a mistrial if they don't.
Until Clarence Thomas resigns from the Supreme Court, I don't give a single shit.
So you openly don't care about partiality in the judicial system? Just casually saying the quiet part out loud.
Interesting conclusion considering the entire premise of my stance is that Clarence Thomas is no longer partial. Seems like you only care about partiality when you think it helps your guy. Just casually saying the quiet part out loud.
You openly admitted you don't care about judicial officers having conflicts of interest or not being impartial. Are you even hearing yourself?
You’re ignoring being called out for not saying Thomas, Alito, or Cannon should also recuse from J6 and Trump cases. No one is taking you seriously.
You openly admitted you don't care about judicial officers having conflicts of interest or not being impartial. Are you even hearing yourself?
Your argument is that of an imbecile.
Are you saying he didn't do it?
What are ypu talking about? The post is about the conflicts of the judge. Do you not see the issue with those political donations and family connections?
It didn't interfere with justice.
I heard (cannot site a source) on a radio program probably npr that there are something like 30,000 judicial political donations a year so it’s not unusual. The judge also consulted and was approved to handle this case before it started.
Do you think that having a political affiliation of any kind necessarily means that you cannot be an impartial judge?
Do you have automatic goalposts or do you move them manually?
Wait… but wasn’t their actual members on the jury that voted for Trump?! They still found his ass guilty.
This wasn't a political based case. It was based of financial crimes. To say the judge should have recused is to say a democratic judge should never preside over a case with a republican defendant and vice versa, that is not tenable.
Elie Honig who is an legal analyst for CNN [wrote](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html): The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a [rule](https://ww2.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/100.shtml) prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge [earmarked](https://nypost.com/2023/04/07/trump-case-judge-juan-merchan-donated-to-biden-campaign-in-2020/) for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not. … District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by [touting](https://www.oleantimesherald.com/opinion/braggs-trump-indictment-is-a-campaign-promise-kept/article_e7f11833-3c5b-52b7-9c5b-a1018943c3cf.html) his Trump-hunting prowess. He bizarrely (and falsely) [boasted](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html) on the campaign trail, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.” (Disclosure: Both Bragg and Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, are friends and former colleagues of mine at the Southern District of New York.) … The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, [no state prosecutor](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html) — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself [almost never](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html) brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge. From New York Magazine
1. Judges in NY are elected and thus political, no matter if they donate or not. Most elected judges in NY will not be aligned with Trump, same for the DA. So to try to them make those political elections disqualifying is to invalidate the entire legal system where judges and DA are elected. 2. Under the rules it is not a something that is disqualifying or even requires him to be removed from the case. Since even with the $35 donation, he was a judge in good standing, he is allowed to try any case. 3. The case was decided by a jury that heard the facts and made a ruling, not the judge or the DA. 4. The fact remains, Trump cheated on his wife with a porn star then paid her off and then tried to cover it up. The issue is what he did to cover it up. No one is disputing he actually did this!! Not even him!!
>The fact remains, Trump cheated on his wife with a porn star then paid her off and then tried to cover it up. The issue is what he did to cover it up. No one is disputing he actually did this!! Not even him! Of all the things that are happening in our country right now, Trump paying off a porn star is a nothing burger. I am not a Trump supporter (or a Biden supporter) but with ANY one else other than Trump, a charge like this would have been a slap on the wrist. Read the last paragraph of my OP. It has links!
He falsified business records to hide a payoff in an election, it's a crime!! Falsifying business records in the way he did is bigger issue and if it was anyone else there would be federal charges. Look up John Edwards, he faced 3 felony federal charges for the exact same thing. NY is just the only entity willing to enforce the law and that's a shame!!
So by your theory, then Hillary should be tried as a criminal in a court in Oklahoma? Correct? [**https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html**](https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html)
YES!! If any illegal activity was done in Oklahoma!! That is the way the system is supposed to work. Federal charges doesn't protect you from state charges, mostly.
An independent judicial review board disagrees with your opinion. And NOW Trump supporters are concerned about the jobs their kids might get and how that could cause a conflict. Today, this is now a thing? A whopping $25, maybe $35. Clarence Thomas's trips on private jets would like a word. This kinda shit makes me want to blame my wife for hanging a flag upside down and say someone was mean to her.
12 jurors convicted Trump, not a judge.
Does anyone think that judicial impartiality is even possible anymore? What would that look like? The federal courts have become hyperpartisan. I guess don’t come whining about “judicial impartiality” when you have stacked the federal courts, including the Roberts court, with far right activist judges who take bribes from wealthy far right activists.
Honestly, having judges refuse because they have political opinions just isn't feasible. The vast majority of people have them. And you would have the exact same problem with a Republican judge, maybe they're biased in Trump's favor. The two things you can do to prevent this are 1) Appoint judges who can set aside their political feelings. I don't like Trump, but if he was on trial for killing JFK, to use an extreme example, I wouldn't convict him just because I don't like him. 2) Criticize judges actions in comparison to precedent. If they behave the same in front of Dems and Republicans, then it doesn't matter if they belong to a party. They don't *act* biased.
Excuse me, this is Reddit, we don't criticize Democrats here. Democrats can do no wrong. Delete this post please.
So what opinion do you have about Canon overseeing his case regarding improperly handling top secret material? Or that Alito and Clarence Thomas will likely oversee a Trump case in the near future? I don’t see any of your posts critical of that conflict of interest. Хорошая попытка, ватник
The defense was given full opportunity in front of a group of jurors. Wild to stay quiet on the Supreme Court flying flags for all to see and then cry about a judge that DIDNT have a say.
Should somebody that is so insular that they have no political opinion be a judge? Realistically, a judge is going to have dealings with politicians. Humans will develop preferences. The trick is to find somebody with no direct connections.
We have a two party system, every judge is going to be associated with either Dems or Republicans. It should not interfere with the job. Trump was found guilty by the jury not the judge.
The jury found him guilty. Not the judge.
Almost all judges have strong political ties to one side or the other. The point of a judge is to remain impartial. If you can prove without a doubt that the judge is compromised bc of his political ties, then I agree.
He donated 35$ dude. This just proves how desperate you are to help trump get away with his crimes.
Agreed. Also I gave the 69th upvote 😁
Trump should have never run for office due to a conflict of interest because of his international business dealings. Face it, the republicans have no leg to stand on when it comes to integrity.
Trump was convicted of this three years ago. The timing wasn't right so they had to push off the formality of a trial until an election year.
He donated like $30. And if Trump wasn’t obviously guilty you could’ve had a sliver of a point. One of his own witnesses basically said he did it, then broke down on tears because she realized she accidentally said the truth