Posted on 08/04/2023 7:40:11 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
Conservative radio host and litigator Mark Levin said Thursday on the Mark Levin Show that Donald Trump’s lawyers should file an emergency request for the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the prosecutions of the former president.
[...]
“This unprecedented legal warfare requires an unprecedented response by the only constitutional body left that can do something about it.”
“This would not be the Supreme Court interfering in the political process,” he said. “This would be the Supreme Court defending the Constitution.”
“This is serious to the survivability of this Republic … This is one political party trying to destroy another. This is one political party trying to monopolize elections, federal law enforcement, and the entire justice system. And if they get away with it, it’s over."
Worked so well with all those result-challenging lawsuits Trump's team filed post-2020 election.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
He’s made enemies of the very folks who otherwise might be pulling together to help him.
\/
Oh brother please.
Sure they would have...NOT.
Has a threat to all the crooks rice bowl.
“Just what can the Supreme Court do? They cannot give him immunity from persecution and prosecution.”
Well, they don’t need to, at least in the case of the latest indictments, since those all refer to actions Trump took when he ALREADY possessed presidential immunity. All the Supreme Court would need to do would be to affirm, that yes, Trump was a sitting President during that time, and therefore, cannot be indicted for criminal matters that he was not successfully impeached and convicted of in the Senate first.
Under what law or precedence?
/\
.
Election interference
Everybody hates that right ?
Right ?
Everybody ?
Use their favorite Alinsky rule of
making the other guy live up to their own standards.
They want to play the
Election interference card ?
Ok
Let’s see who has the fact backed hand
And more importantly
Who doesn’t ( looking at you Jack )
President Trump can make the argument that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to hear the case directly.
This latest indictment says "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant.
Article III Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.Since the Democrats have absolute control over the departments of the United States and are using those departments to harass President Trump in advance of the upcoming election, Trump can make the case that the United States is a party to his case of abuse of power and whatever other legal terminology expresses the concern.
Trump can ask the Supreme Court to act as original jurisdiction to review the charges in the indictment for conformity to law and precedence and throw out vague, ambiguous, mis-applied, or unprovable charges that are only meant to harass and distract President from running his campaign against the Democrats.
Essentially he can ask the Supreme Court for relief from Democrats colluding to prevent him from running a fair campaign against them.
-PJ
Exactly.
I think another point is that the law fare deprives the American People of their ability to choose and vote for the candidate of their choose. The way it is now, the Dems on every level are in control of those decision. The argument could be made that the American People are being harmed and should be parties.
This ask of the USSC is not about the whether he is guilty or not, it’s about interfering with his ability to run for office due to the legal persecution by his direct opponent who holds the power.
100%
You are joking, right?
We all know that Torricelli dropped out of the New Jersey Senate race after voting began and the Democrats sued in state court to have Frank Lautenberg substituted in Torricelli's place because "the voters have a right to a competitive election."
Forrester appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that New Jersey did have a "competitive election" and they were choosing him. The Democrats were simply substituting a losing candidate for a former winning candidate because the voters had rejected their candidate for the Republican.
Being so close to the Bush v. Gore case and still stinging from the public backlash, SCOTUS declined to hear Forrester's appeal, essentially leaving in place the notion that "voters deserved a competitive election."
SCOTUS has the same opportunity now with the case of UNITED STATES V. DONALD J. TRUMP to set aside the indictments against President Trump in the name of "voters deserving a free and fair competitive election."
Let the voters decide, not 12 DC jurors hearing a fraudulent case based on fraudulent charges.
-PJ
Vaguely remember the case you reference, but thank you for the information. I agree with your analysis. Where does it leave the people if the candidate of choice for many is taken off the chessboard by his opponent who has the position, power and money to do so—very bad precedent if allowed to happen.
You cited Clause 1, which is the general jurisdictional clause for all Art III federal courts. Clause 2 deals specifically with the USSC and specifies its original jurisdiction scenarios. See my post #23 on this thread for clause 2.
In the New Jersey case, that's what happened. The people who voted for Forrester had their election taken away from them when the Democrats substituted the losing candidate in the middle of the election after enough votes had been cast to show they were losing.
In that case, SCOTUS let that stand to avoid the bad publicity of stepping into another federal election, essentially saying that elections aren't "fair" unless there is both a Democrat and a Republican running competitively. The message was that if it is a blow-out and the Democrat is losing, they can substitute a fresh candidate in the middle of voting.
The message for SCOTUS is that they have to let Trump run unencumbered in the name of "free, fair, and competitive" elections and block the Democrats from using the power of government to impede their opponents like they did in New Jersey in 2002.
-PJ
If the “charges” (sic) are for alleged acts when he was President, isn’t impeachment the sole legal mechanism?
-PJ
“You don’t understand???”
There is a lot things that person doesn’t understand, being the Never Trumper that he is.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.