Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
There's nothing worse than getting home from your trip only to find out you missed a can't-miss travel experience. That's why you need Viator. Book guided tours, excursions, and more in one place to make your trip truly unregrettable. There are over 300,000 travel experiences to choose from so you can find something for everyone. And Viator offers free cancellation and 24-7 customer service. So you always have support around the clock.
Download the Viator app now to use code VIATOR10 for 10% off your first booking in the app. Regret less. Do more with Viator. Hey, everyone. Ellie here wishing you another happy summer Friday. As always, the legal news piles up. As always, thank you for tuning in. And as always, love to hear your feedback. So please send me any thoughts, questions, or comments to letters at cafe.com.
Imagine you're a federal judge. You've been around for a few years now, and while you're no longer the new kid on the bench, you're certainly no gray beard. Many of your colleagues are a generation or more older and more experienced than you. But you're finding your way. You've handled a few medium profile cases. You've had your ups and downs, and you're starting to get into the rhythm. Hey, you got life tenure to figure it all out.
Every day, late in the afternoon, you get an automatically generated email from the clerk listing the new criminal indictments that have been randomly wheeled out to you. And you now know, by the way, that this terminology, wheeled out, is quite literal. In some districts, there's an actual spinnable wheel, like one they'd use to draw bingo balls to assign judges randomly to incoming cases. Most days, the case names and numbers mean little to you, yet just an assortment of captions indicating people whose liberty will soon rest largely in your hands.
One afternoon, you open the email. And there, among a few other new matters, you see this. United States v. Donald John Trump.
Two federal judges, Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., and Judge Eileen Cannon in the Southern District of Florida, have recently had something like this experience. The two district court judges who will handle the Trump indictments are, in some respects, bound by common histories. Both are new-ish for federal judges. Chutkan is 61 years old, with just over a decade on the bench. That passes for middle age at most in the federal judiciary, while Cannon is 42, with three years of judicial experience.
Both earned their robes after careers trying cases in the same courts over which they now preside. Both are the daughters of immigrants. Chutkin grew up in Jamaica and Cannon was born in Columbia and raised in Miami with a Cuban mother. Both broke gender and racial barriers by becoming federal district court judges and predictably both have been subjected to threats and verbal attacks. Now both jurists face the greatest tests of their careers.
Yet the two judges are also revealing mirror images of one another. Chutkin ascended to the bench upon her nomination by President Barack Obama and confirmation by the U.S. Senate by a 95 to 0 vote in 2014. Cannon is a Trump nominee confirmed in 2020, hers by 5621, with a dozen Democrats voting for her.
Chutkin spent most of her prejudicial legal career as a federal public defender in Washington, D.C. Cannon worked on the other side of the courtroom as a federal prosecutor for DOJ in Florida.
Since the Trump cases landed on their dockets, Chutkin has been baselessly attacked by Trump and his supporters, while Cannon has withstood hysterical shrieking from resistance Twitter and the like. One prominent liberal scholar compared a ministerial ruling of Cannon's to Dred Scott. Yes, Dred Scott, the Supreme Court decision that made racial segregation the law of the land for a century, and to Korematsu, which authorized internment of Japanese Americans. I don't think any further comment is necessary.
The easy narrative is this. Cannon is a sweet draw for Trump and Chutkin is a nightmare. While we can readily see the origins of these views, they're both oversimplified and corrosive. Judge Cannon, the story goes, is a Trump nominee who ruled for him on a discovery dispute that preceded the Mar-a-Lago indictment and then was reversed by a conservative court of appeals. That's all true, but it's incomplete and it's misleading. Those who have called for Cannon to recuse herself because Trump put her on the bench are
assume without support that she's somehow in the bag for Trump or loyal to him. The reality is she has life tenure now. She owes Trump nothing and he'd have no means to collect anyway. And as to the prior Mar-a-Lago ruling, district court judges get reversed all the time. Show me one, one who's been on the bench for any amount of time without a handful of reversals.
Most importantly, the rap on Cannon ignores that she has handled the actual Mar-a-Lago indictment decisively and not exactly in Trump's favor so far. In a case where speed is all important, she has rejected Trump's entreaties to set no trial date or to push it back beyond the 2024 election. Instead, she's issued a detailed schedule that leads up to trial in May of 2024. Of course, DOJ may now have jeopardized their own schedule by filing a superseding indictment, adding,
a defendant and three new charges against Trump.
The casual first take on Judge Chutkin is that she's an Obama nominee who has ruled against Trump in the past and seems to have it in for him and for anything connected to January 6th. Again, that characterization and its implication of bias fails upon scrutiny. Yes, Obama put Chutkin on the bench, but see above about the political loyalties of a life-tenured federal judge. And yes, Chutkin forcefully rejected a 2021 Trump challenge to a subpoena issued by the January 6th committee,
pointedly noting that, quote, presidents are not kings and plaintiff is not president, end quote. But she wasn't biased. She was right. Judge Chutkan also has dished out harsh sentences to various January 6th rioters, noting that one offender, quote, did not go to the United States Capitol out of any love for our country. He went for one man, end quote. Again, no lies detected. Again, getting it right does not indicate bias.
So let me make this proposal. Whether you love Trump or hate him, whether you hope he rots or walks, whether you want to don a team jersey and cheer or dispassionately observe how the process plays out, let's all agree to assume good faith by both judges. Both deserve that presumption based on their experience before taking the bench and by their initial handling of the two new Trump indictments. And let's stick by that too, at least until either judge proves otherwise.
Let's stipulate that not every decision will go exactly as a party or a partisan might wish. And when that happens, we won't throw up our hands and declare, see, I knew that lousy fill in the blank Obama or Trump nominee was no good.
I'm not saying we should blindly praise or support these judges just because we like to be shiny, happy people. Their work may well merit criticism. And at a certain point, either judge might reveal partiality or partisanship. But unless and until we have demonstrable proof to the contrary, let's assume that Judge Chutkan and Judge Cannon will do what they swore to do when they first donned their judicial robes, to uphold and apply the law without fear or favor. They've both earned that.
Thanks for listening. Stay safe and stay informed.
On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Watch Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll, and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet, and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app to watch live. Learn more at globalcitizen.org.
