So much for Republicans for the Rule of Law.

 

Aileen Cannon Is Trying to Put Trump Beyond the Rule of Law

She's more than a bad judge. She's working to subvert the legal system itself.

Jonathan V. Last

Mar 22, 2024

Today on the Secret show, Sarah broke me. I genuinely lost it and . . . I guess I’m voting for Trump now? Because this country deserves it? I don’t know. I’m going through some stuff this morning.

You can catch the show here.

1. The Fix

Here is the thing about the rule of law: If you believe in it, you have to do so knowing full well that it will frequently fail to deliver justice.

The goal of the rule of law isn’t to guarantee justice.

It’s to create a stable framework of general standards and procedures that have to be followed by everyone—even though individual outcomes will be wildly different.

Meaning: When you sign up for the rule of law, you sign up for both the good and the bad.

You will get smart prosecutors and dumb prosecutors. Reasonable jury verdicts and nonsensical jury verdicts. Guilty people going free and innocent people going to jail.1

You will get honest judges. And you will get judges like Aileen Cannon.

We should all be inured to a judge performing the way Judge Cannon has over the last several months because she is operating within the rule of law and we accept the rule of law for what it is: Not a guarantee of justice, but a coherent, transparent set of rules and processes that will sometimes deliver justice and sometimes thwart the interests of justice—but will always be consistent.

Judge Cannon has operated with the framework of the law. She has followed the processes set forth in the law. Has she used her prescribed powers of discretion in ways you or I might think are biased or unwise? Yes. But that is her prerogative under the rule of law.

Further: She is subject to judicial review.

So if Judge Cannon rules in ways you or I do not prefer, and her rulings are reviewed by appellate courts, and the stolen documents / obstruction of justice case against Trump results in an outcome that we believe is contra the interests of justice, then . . .

Well, them’s the breaks. We are committed to the rule of law and that means living with outcomes we believe are unjust so long as the process is followed.

And yet, something about Aileen Cannon’s case feels wrong in a way that does not jibe with the rule of law.

Why is that?