Donald Trumpā€™s favorite judge is suddenly losing law clerks.

Judge Aileen Cannon has been moving alarmingly slowly in setting up a trial date for Donald Trumpā€™s classified documents criminal caseā€”but it may not be a bid to help out the man who appointed her.

As of Thursday, the Florida judge had lost at least two law clerks in the last six months, who up and quit on her rather than finish out their one-year terms, according to several sources within Cannonā€™s legal circuit that spoke with attorney David Lat.

The rarity of multiple clerks leaving their posts canā€™t be understated, especially considering that judges typically hire just two or three clerks per annum. As Lat notes in his SubstackĀ Original Jurisdiction, ā€œa law clerkā€™s role is substantive, not clerical or administrative.ā€ Clerks are more like a judgeā€™s right and left handsā€”they help the judiciary conduct research, prepare for trials, and draft opinions. Clerkships are highly competitive, and one serving a federal judge would otherwise be considered rĆ©sumĆ© gold, so itā€™s certainly curious that they seem to be fleeing her bench.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    Ā·
    8 months ago

    Do you agree with everything your employer does? Because I sure as hell donā€™t. We all have to compromise to some level.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      Ā·
      8 months ago

      I wouldnā€™t apply if my prospective employer was the equivalent of a trump appointment unqualified, unethical ā€œjudgeā€ - again not sure youā€™re getting the fact that she was a known quantity when they applied for the clerkships.

      I wouldnā€™t apply to that position because of my own morals, but also because of know that it would be poison to my resume - unless I was of course content to work for a series of the same broken assholes for the rest of my career (and in that scenario, Iā€™m also a broken asshole).

      Are you just being a contrarian for the sake of it? because you donā€™t have an argument here.