Is anybody startled or surprised by how judicial discretion can be stretched and tailored to fit objectives?

 search = Aileen Cannon news [past day]

EmptyWheel takes notice.

THE BOT -

My question to Microsoft's Copilot in Windows preview =  Is it fair that Judge Aileen Cannon struck the prior trial date and continued things indefinitely?

Yes, it was fishing to see if the bot would split hairs over "fair" being subjective. The question was parsed with "fair" ignored, the BOT saying:

Federal Judge Aileen Cannon has indefinitely postponed former President Donald Trump’s federal trial in Florida. The trial was initially scheduled for May 20, but due to a tangle of pretrial conflicts between special counsel Jack Smith and Trump’s attorneys, the date has been pushed back. Judge Cannon intends to resolve other issues in the case before setting a new trial date¹². This reshuffling further complicates matters for Smith, who is also awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. The outcome of this ruling could impact another case against Trump, related to charges for attempting to subvert the 2020 election². So, while the postponement may raise questions, it aligns with the complexities of legal proceedings. 📜🔍

So, bot-speak allows every Crabgrass reader to form a separate opinion of how the question might have been better answered. ". . . may raise questions . . . aligns with the complexities of legal proceedings" suggests the BOT should go into politics, seeking federal office of some kind. Fitting into either party by feigning profound analytic skills. Not that advocacy these days would approve of fence straddling.