Posted on 05/31/2024 7:26:28 AM PDT by Red Badger
The guilty verdict against former President Donald Trump reached by a Manhattan jury on Thursday could ultimately be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, legal experts said.
Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an unprecedented verdict against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee just months before the 2024 election. The verdict is likely to be appealed by Trump’s legal team, however, and experts say the final decision in Trump’s hush-money trial could come down to a ruling from the highest court in the land.
Attorney Roger Severino, who is the vice president of Domestic Policy and the Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told “Morning Wire” on Friday that Trump’s legal team could make “constitutional arguments that his right to a fair trial was violated.”
“And the Constitution means something,” Severino added. “It means, if anything, you cannot jail political opponents because you don’t like what the American people are going to vote for.”
Severino said that he believes the Supreme Court will intervene in the case if Trump doesn’t win on appeal.
“Ultimately, I think the Supreme Court, if he doesn’t win on appeal, will take this up and reverse,” the attorney said. “This is a political prosecution. We are better than this as a country and this cannot stand.”
The Heritage Foundation fellow added that whether Trump ends up behind bars is still unknown, saying “it would be shameful if this judge were to order this man to go to jail when they weren’t able to point to any victims.”
“This is so shocking and unprecedented that we’re even discussing the possibility of putting political opponents in jail in the middle of an election,” he said.
Judge Juan Merchan scheduled Trump’s sentencing for July 11, just four days before the start of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee where Trump is set to be nominated for president. The former president could face up to four years in prison.
Lawyer and political commentator Mark Levin also wrote about the possibility of the Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s guilty verdict, saying he was surprised that “TV lawyers and others” talking about Trump’s conviction “ignore a federal path to the Supreme Court.”
“The issue is how to get out of the New York system and bring the case to the Supreme Court, which may or may not take it up,” Levin wrote on Thursday night. “That is why I look to Bush v Gore, where the S Ct decided to step in BECAUSE it was a presidential election.”
“There was another court involved, the Florida Supreme Court. And it was that court that the Supreme Court believed was violating the Equal Protection Clause. That was the doctrine it settled on, given the unequal treatment of voters,” he added.
Levin then laid out how the case that was prosecuted by Manhattan Democratic District Attorney Alvin Bragg and decided by 12 Manhattan jurors could go before the Supreme Court.
“In New York, you would file the notice of appeal, ask for a stay of the trial court, and seek expedited review,” he wrote. “You need to protect your ability to timely appeal and not abandon it. You might then file applications for common law writs with the US Supreme Court, where the S Ct can take action if it chooses, and legitimately claim the harm is immediate and ongoing not just to a presidential candidate, but to the federal electoral system, federal campaign jurisdiction (reverse federalism), and the precedent that might otherwise be set and spread throughout the country. The denial of due process infected every aspect of the case.”
You think Merchan was bad. Take a look at Trump’s DEI hanging crew that awaits him on the first step of appeal in New York City, all black woman Democrat judge 1st Judicial appellate court. 96% of black women voted for the other guy last election. That’s why his team needs to consider Levin’s suggestion of trying to circumvent the NYS appellate system and apply for writ of certiorari directly with the US Supreme Court to review it
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1796535315227893920
It seems that everyone in the legal community has an idea on how to get SCOTUS involved in this case except for Trump’s lawyers. Is Alina at the beauty salon?
Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records ,Trump was very busy for someone who knew nothing about it
The SCOTUS needs to deem Merry’s Department of Jackasses unconstitutional now that it has weaponized by the Kenyan boy. It’s time to defund the Obeyme Sombrero’s “17 ‘intelligence’ communities”.
They can no longer fear what ever it is they fear.
The weak link in Trump's armor: The people he ultimately decides to put in charge.
About 5 years from now.
Right now Trump is free to do what he wants as a candidate so it is not yet a Constitutional crisis. But it will be potentially so after the sentencing.
Correct, ultimately. SC taking cases that leap frog states’ systems is rare. This case is rare, all right, but can be overturned within New York. If it gets kicked back, I’m not sure that would bode well if it gets before SC after the state appeals have been exhausted.
Yes.
First question the Court should ask, which election did Trump interfere with (supposedly)?
When the lawyer for the DAs office says the 2016 Presidential Election, the Court should overturn Trump’s conviction based on the Manhattan DA having no jurisdiction over Federal Elections.
Democrats attempted to take Trump off a few states as a presidential candidate. That was a federal issue which the Supreme court had to intervene in, and they batted back the ludicrous democrat nonsense.
Trump was ‘convicted’ by democrats on a federal issue which NYC and NY state have no standing to get involved in. It’s another federal issue in which the Supreme court has jurisdiction, and must bat that back against the NYC/NY DAs.
Federal issues belong in the federal courts and not with state or local courts. NYC went too far with attempting to get Trump out of the 2024 elections.
If Trump in jail, try habeus corpus. Under 28USC2254 exhaustion of state remedies is unnecessary if “circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect” his rights. He has a right to run for President without an unconstitutional felony conviction on his record.
“all black woman Democrat judge 1st Judicial appellate court”
It’s not all black women in that court. You were looking at a picture of just the black women in the court. But it doesn’t matter what color they are, they’ll all vote as a bloc.
I would like to see the Supreme Court stay any further proceedings by Merchan due to the appearance of impropriety during the trial, until the appeals process is exhausted.
Screw the courts. It’s the public who need to intervene.
This is as bad as the show trials in Russia. Wake up and quite pretending to be accomplished lawyers that can spot incompetence. Logic and justice have been thrown out and leftist ideology has replaced it.
That fatass chunk of scum, Fat Albert Bragg, needs to lose his lawyer license to “practice” due to the ignorant Nazi crap he just pulled in a FAR LEFT, WEAPONIZED New Yawk kangaroo court.
The problem is that the USSC was WRONG to grant a hearing to Bush v. Gore, and to top it off, it was wrongly decided.
The "presidential election" that people want the USSC to intervene in does not exist in the US Constitution.
If the Court had (correctly) used the non-justiceable political question doctrine and refused to hear the case, the normal Article II and Amendment XII processes would have taken place.
There was ZERO possibility, had that happened, that Al Gore could have become President (unless Republicans elected him). There was a small possibility that Joe Lieberman could have become VP (as one of three possible outcomes).
The Court overstepped, NOT in my opinion as partisans but as power hungry officials who achieved what was never intended - Federal control over the processes by which States appoint Electors.
THe WHOLE REASON there is an Electoral College, to this day, is to reserve appointment of an incoming administration to the States rather than to the National government.
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.