• Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I hate to say it, and I know it’s going to sound fatalistic, but her decision is very likely going to stand.

    Clarence Thomas literally handed her this argument on a silver platter. And say what you will about him, the legal system still considers him one of nine justices of the highest court in the land, and his words still carry that legal weight.

    If Jack Smith appeals, there’s (IMO), a 50/50 chance he wins on appeal. I could see the appeals court using things like logic and rational thought, kicking Cannon off the case and reinstating the charges against Trump (Or however that would work in the legal sense). But I could also see them saying that since she was merely following what Clarence Thomas told her to do, her decision is on sound legal footing, would most likely survive Supreme Court scrutiny, her decision was proper based on the SC ruling, and the decision stands. And from a strictly legal standpoint, they’d be right in doing so.

    And if this case were to make it all the way up to the SC…since Cannon was literally following their blueprint, there’s 0% chance that they’ll suddenly rule against her. Nothing good can come out of appealing to the Supreme Court, and in fact it may be exactly what this supreme court wants and why Clarence Thomas added that little tidbit into the decision, so the SC can rule that all special counsels are illegal and the entire J6 investigation was unconstitutional as a result.

    (Of course, Hunter Biden’s conviction will still stand, because reasons…)

    This case is dead. The other three are on life support, and the doctor has already called for the chaplain to deliver last rites.

    • Norgoroth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s even worse than that, it had nothing to do with Thomas or SC. She claims the AG has no constitutional authority to appoint a special counsel.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Because Thomas literally gave her that argument to make in the immunity ruling. She literally cited his comments and basically copied his ruling like a high school kid copying off the “smart” kid in the class.

        He basically told her “Hey, throw the case out. We’ve got your back.”

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            That’s the Thomas two-step. He uses these concurrences to issue marching orders to the judges below him, so that it can be challenged up to the Supreme Court and then his concurrence becomes precedent.

            • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              Thomas is not the supreme court. And he’s starting to alienate himself from even the other conservative justices. He’s on an island and I doubt the others would follow his lead if this reaches SCOTUS on appeal.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                They’ll rule it’s Constitutional to hunt Democrats for their pelts and you’ll still be pretending the Court is legitimate. 🙄