Dan made much ado about Trump being overturned by a couple of lower court judges and demanded that everyone make definitive claims about how they would respond of SCOTUS finds against Trump. Well, let's see if his reverence for the judiciary is still what it was, and let's see his support for the more recent rulings on Trump's actions.
https://www.beaufortcountynow.com/post/86714/massive-conflict-of-interest-found-on-anti-trump-federal-judge.html
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/judge-mcconnells-daughter-catherine-works-in-education-department-elon-musk-sparks-row-article-118156678
https://instituteforlegalreform.com/press-release/mcconnell-is-unqualified-to-sit-on-the-federal-bench-in-rhode-island/
https://x.com/america1stlegal/status/1891226933481877590?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
So the states that sued Trump decided to venue shop to find a friendly judge, well known as a highly partisan democrat, who would find in their favor on their initial motion. That doesn't really sound like the way that an impartial judicial system should be engaged in cases of this import.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-declines-block-musks-doge-from-accessing-data-firing-employees
I'm sure that Dan will be applauding this judicial decision because of his reverence for the judicial system.
2 comments:
Hard to say. Dan's concerned with outcomes and who is being sued. As with the fraudulent trial which "convicted" Trump giving haters like Dan the rationalization for referring to him as a "convicted felon", the outcome is the main thing, not the process, those involved with the process or any of that. But to shop around to find those most likely to get the outcome already decided by them, Dan and the lefties are totally fine with a tree slug ruling, so long as it rules against Trump, and damn how it got to that ruling.
Dan's interest in the legal process and knowledge of the legal process is limited to the degree that it helps to move the agenda and narrative he believes forward.
He's not interested that the prosecutors and judge used a novel "human legal theory" to turn 1 clerical/bookkeeping "mistake" ( which historically would have been a single misdemeanor charge), into 34 "felonies". Because that sort of minutia is unimportant because it allows him to use the term "felon" with impunity. If/when Trump's conviction is overturned, Dan will ignore that and continue to use the term "convicted felon" because it suits his narrative. Dan's ignorance of how the legal system works is obvious. His obsession with calling Trump a "rapist" even though Trump has never been tried for, let alone convicted, of the crime of rape is another great example. His inability to differentiate between criminal and civil courts and the differing burden of proof is immaterial as long as he can pretend that Trump has been "convicted" of "rape/sexual assault".
That the current ruling is the result of judge shopping and will likely be overturned by a less partisan judge is, again, immaterial. He's not interested in justice or the equal application of the law, he's interested in ammunition to use against Trump and Trump supporters.
Post a Comment