The Smith team then made its most important and aggressive move by noting that when judges have issued clearly erroneous jury instructions that doom prosecutions, “courts have permitted the government to obtain writs of mandamus.”

Even buried in a parenthetical as it is, the word “mandamus” jumps off the page as a threat to seek an extraordinary intervention by the appellate court. Smith has laid down the gauntlet, telling Cannon in no uncertain terms that if she doesn’t move to resolve Trump’s frivolous arguments well ahead of trial, he will bring a writ of mandamus to the 11th Circuit along with a motion to recuse her from the case. Providing this road map of his intentions puts Smith on firm footing to challenge the judge if she continues to dither.

  • bobburger@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Writ of mandamus from Wikipedia

    A writ of mandamus (/mænˈdeɪməs/; lit. ‘‘we command’’) is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action.[1] They cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against the law. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

    • Entropywins@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Appreciate the info…it’s funny they have a special way to officially say “nah, fuck you, do your job.”

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Until AI is smart enough to preside over our courtrooms in a purely unbiased fashion (ha!), we’ll be stuck with shitty humans running our shitty legal systems.

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          9 months ago

          Garbage In, Garbage Out.

          Even if humans build a computer smarter than we are, the machines will still be a product of human minds.

          • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Of course but the next generation will be of the computer’s minds. Evolution will continue long into the machine age.

            • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Intelligent and moral are too separate things. Henry Kissinger was objectively intelligent He spoke several languages and conducted high level negotiations with world leaders. He also made the decision to bomb civilians in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

              • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                I thought we were talking about AI judges. They should be impartial and consider the facts, what has morals got to do with it?

                • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  You should read some of Kissinger’s writings. He didn’t kill all those people because he wanted to be a monster; he had a rational belief that killing millions in Asia would lead to long term peace. He was impartial and considered the facts.

                  • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Judges have to interpret the law and apply it. AI executive branch / military would apply to what you’re saying however.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          AI would work along the parameters that are set by the biased humans that programmed it, so it would just be another layer of abstraction continuing the same systemic issues.