The Supreme Court narrowly (5-4) refused Donald Trump’s request to postpone his sentencing hearing, a decision allowing the proceeding to proceed via Zoom. Trump was subsequently sentenced for multiple felonies, though he received no jail time, fine, or probation. The court’s majority cited the availability of appeals and the minimal disruption to Trump’s presidential duties as justification. This outcome, while offering a symbolic moment of accountability, ultimately highlighted the limitations of the legal system in meaningfully punishing powerful figures.
Read More
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito spoke with President-elect Trump the day before Trump’s lawyers petitioned the court to halt his upcoming hush-money sentencing. Alito claims the call, at the request of a former law clerk, solely concerned a job recommendation and did not involve the pending petition. However, the timing raises ethical concerns regarding potential protocol violations given the court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal. Trump’s legal team argues the sentencing would interfere with the presidential transition, citing potential presidential immunity. The Supreme Court will now consider Trump’s petition.
Read More
Following a TUC directive urging participation in a “Day of Action for Palestine” by wearing Palestinian attire, several BBC journalists resigned from the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), citing concerns about impartiality and potential breaches of BBC editorial guidelines. The NUJ acknowledged the sensitivity surrounding the request and the ensuing resignations, while the TUC confirmed no similar requests were made during the Ukraine conflict. The situation has sparked controversy, with accusations of antisemitism and concerns about a hostile work environment for Jewish staff. The Board of Deputies criticized the unions’ actions as ignorant and inflammatory.
Read More
The reports that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted a free yacht trip to Russia and a chopper flight to Putin’s hometown are absolutely mind-boggling. The fact that he has received over $2.4 million worth of gifts, far more than any other Supreme Court Justice, is deeply troubling. These undisclosed gifts, coupled with his ties to individuals with active cases before the Supreme Court, raise serious questions about his integrity and impartiality.
The lack of enforceable oversight on the Supreme Court is a constitutional flaw that allows for this kind of corruption to go unchecked. Impeachment is merely window dressing and realistically unachievable.… Continue reading
I find it humorous, in a rather sad way, that there is still this pervasive idea floating around that the Supreme Court is some beacon of impartiality and justice. The reality is far from that; the Court is deeply entrenched in politics and ideology, just like any other branch of government. To even make it onto the Supreme Court, you need political connections and an ideology that aligns with the president who nominated you. The notion that justices are chosen solely for their judicial acumen is a farce; it all comes down to party ideology and political maneuvering.
The entire process of selecting Supreme Court justices reeks of politics and power plays.… Continue reading
Considering the current state of affairs surrounding the judge handling Trump’s classified-documents case, Aileen Cannon, it is evident that the concerns expressed by critics have been validated. From the beginning, worries emerged surrounding Cannon’s lack of trial experience, her appointment by Trump, and her troubling rulings in favor of Trump that were later overturned by a critical appeals court. These initial objections have now been exacerbated by Cannon’s continuous favorable treatment of Trump in the case, raising serious doubts about her ability to impartially adjudicate it. It is clear that Cannon is not fit for the task at hand; her actions have only served to undermine faith in the legal system.… Continue reading
Every day, I wake up and read the latest about the ongoing trial between Jack Smith and The Federalist Society via Cannon. The more I delve into the details, the more apparent it becomes that something is gravely amiss with the handling of this case. The idea that a judge, particularly one appointed by a figure as divisive as Donald Trump, could be allowing personal biases to interfere with the due process of the law is both appalling and infuriating.
It’s no secret that the judiciary in recent years has been tainted by the influence of partisan politics. The judges selected by Trump and Mitch McConnell have raised serious concerns about the integrity and impartiality of the legal system.… Continue reading
I have been closely following the recent developments in the case involving the request for a gag order against Donald Trump in classified documents. The decision by Judge Cannon to reject the motion immediately caught my attention and prompted me to reflect on the implications of such a ruling. It is concerning to see a judge appointed by the defendant ruling in favor of him, raising questions about impartiality and fairness in the judicial system.
The manner in which Judge Cannon dismissed the motion, citing lack of meaningful conferral and professional courtesy, leaves much to be desired. The requirement for adequate time for evaluation and follow-up discussion is crucial in ensuring a fair and just legal process.… Continue reading
Twelve jurors have been selected for Donald Trump’s hush money trial, with the selection of alternates still ongoing. It’s interesting to see the process unfold, especially considering the high stakes involved in this case. As someone who has served as a juror before, I can understand the importance of ensuring a fair and unbiased jury to deliberate on such significant matters.
The idea of selecting alternates at the end of the arguments, as opposed to beforehand, is an intriguing approach. It certainly adds an element of uncertainty for the jurors, not knowing if they are “just an alternate” or part of the final deliberation group.… Continue reading
It is truly mind-boggling that we are still dealing with the issue of Judge Cannon overseeing the Trump classified documents case. The conflict of interest is glaringly obvious, yet here we are, waiting for some decisive action to be taken. I wholeheartedly agree that a judge should never preside over a case in which they were appointed by one of the parties involved. It’s a clear conflict of interest that should have been addressed from day one.
The fact that Judge Cannon has been dragging her feet, delaying the trial, and making questionable decisions only adds fuel to the fire. It’s frustrating to see the legal system being manipulated in such a blatant manner.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker