Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Speaker Johnson Calls for Supreme Court Intervention on Trump’s Conviction
Slay News ^ | Jun 2 2024 | Nick R. Hamilton

Posted on 06/02/2024 11:29:48 AM PDT by Lazamataz

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has called on the United States Supreme Court to intervene in the politically motivated conviction of President Donald Trump in New York.

Trump now faces sentencing after the sweeping guilty verdict on 34 counts, sparking significant political and legal debates.

On Thursday, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of all 34 charges of falsifying business records, marking a notable moment in the political and judicial landscape of the United States.

The indictment, led by George Soros-funded Democrat District Attorney Alvin Bragg, concluded with this historic verdict.

Following the verdict, Trump’s legal team, represented by attorney Will Scharf, immediately announced their intention to appeal the decision.

The defense highlights the case’s potential to ascend to higher courts.

The announcement of the conviction rapidly captured national attention, setting the stage for further legal and political discourse, according to the Daily Caller.

The response from political figures was swift.

Speaker Johnson discussed the matter on national television and blasted the case.

(Excerpt) Read more at slaynews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-118 next last
To: NEMDF

The answer to your question is he has done nothing. I didn’t have to read the article to know this


21 posted on 06/02/2024 11:50:53 AM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

But not too fast...raise a few hundred mil first.


22 posted on 06/02/2024 11:59:02 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thegagline

But isn’t the crime DJT was charged with a federal crime....and the feds had already decided he committed no crime?

How can a state try a person for a “crime” under a non-state law?


23 posted on 06/02/2024 11:59:46 AM PDT by Aria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Well, there is one way…a unanimous verdict by the SCOTUS.”

0 chance for that.


24 posted on 06/02/2024 12:00:24 PM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

He could simply have defunded the DOJ and didn’t.


25 posted on 06/02/2024 12:03:19 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Johnson should subpoena everyone going after Trump. From Hillary, 0bama and Bi-Dung to the top 5 levels of the FIB and DOJ, the Lawfare Institute, the prosecutors and judges participating in lawfare, ‘RAT congress critters, etc. If they refuse, file contempt referrals. Garland won’t do anything, but Trump can use it as a campaign promise that he will name a head of DOJ that will put all of them in jail if elected. And if elected, Trump should use SWAT raids to round them up, naked and in the middle of the street for hours.


26 posted on 06/02/2024 12:03:47 PM PDT by MtnClimber (For photos of scenery and wildlife, click on my screen name for my FR home page. More photos added.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revel
They need cases brought before them.

They need appellate cases to be brought to them. SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction to hear this case if they want it.

I'd think that this case is ripe for SCOTUS to take because Bragg and Merchan are clearly interfering with the RNC National Convention where Trump is to be formally nominated. It's no coincidence that Merchan chose the sentencing date to be just before the convention when it would not have mattered to "justice" if he waited two more weeks. That's about six weeks away.

In this case, SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction:

Article III Section 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.

I would think that "The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump (IND-71543-23)" would qualify for an original jurisdiction hearing by SCOTUS.

Trump could argue that his fifth and sixth amendment protections were violated by the district attorney and the trial judge in order to convict him and sentence him in such a way as to prevent his nomination in July, which has national impact.

That's pretty ripe right now with the clock ticking to July 15.

-PJ

27 posted on 06/02/2024 12:10:32 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thegagline

A state case with federal implications as well as Constitutional issues is indeed the purview of the US Supreme Court. Look at State Gun laws and cases as an example. You can pass any state law you like that isn’t proscribed by the US constitution, but you can pass laws or pass judgement in a manner that goes against the US constitution. The myriad constitutional violations in this bogus case are expressly enumerated in the US constitution so you have a federal concern here.


28 posted on 06/02/2024 12:12:46 PM PDT by Free Louie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

IMHO, these 34 fake convictions represent Bills of Attainder, using the full power of the government against a private citizen, specifically for political gain.
Bills of Attainder are expressly forbidden by law in the United States.
I’m probably wrong, but they seem to fit the definition.


29 posted on 06/02/2024 12:14:22 PM PDT by Thapsus_epiphany (Socialism is a prison, Communism is a death camp )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: V_TWIN

I understand that.


30 posted on 06/02/2024 12:15:24 PM PDT by laplata (They want each crisis to take the greatest toll possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Revel

Seems I read from a legal author that the Constitution does have language providing authority for SCOTUS to supersede the appellant courts in cases like this.


31 posted on 06/02/2024 12:15:51 PM PDT by elpadre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Free Louie

There are numerous Constitutional issues, probably 4-5.

The Jury instructions were Constitutionally defective.

The NY Court of Appeals is a joke. That’s like holding out for Hochul to be fair and law-bound.

The Truth is the SCOTUS would have interceded long ago if this was Hillary or Joe. You think they’d watch a Prosecutor run on putting Obama in jail and then let totally unprecedented charges be used to get him?

Justice is far gone, and SCOTUS just wants Trump to go away. Now they love them some Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi rhetoric.


32 posted on 06/02/2024 12:21:22 PM PDT by OakOak (Misinformation Campaign on your TV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: gibsonguy

If it doesn’t work, please tell me where does Trump go to stop the these outlawish attacks?
They have hijacked every dept in the government. There is no other place.. Congress could have helped as it was progressing, but their silence was consent to carry on..
You know if they try to put him in prison, there will be heavy reaction, and they would like that..


33 posted on 06/02/2024 12:26:51 PM PDT by frnewsjunkie ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: frnewsjunkie

Unchartered territory.

Since Barry and he put Joe out there.


34 posted on 06/02/2024 12:28:11 PM PDT by frnewsjunkie ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Aria
But isn't the crime DJT was charged with a federal crime...

No .and the feds had already decided he committed no crime?

Again, no. Sources: The Indictment and the Statement of Facts.

Trump's case will have to unfortunately go through the state courts first. It's the old, exhaustion, jurisdiction, ripeness stuff.

35 posted on 06/02/2024 12:30:11 PM PDT by thegagline (Sic semper tyrannis! Goldwater & Thomas Sowell in 2024)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: laplata

“The more pressure on the USSC to do the right thing, the better.”

Trump has to file.


36 posted on 06/02/2024 12:30:41 PM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Yo Mike...you think we can classify this as a Constitutional Crisis....duhhh


37 posted on 06/02/2024 12:30:59 PM PDT by wardamneagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Actions by any state government that has any potential to effect the most Constitutionally regulated federal office has never been done before and there is SCOTUS case precedent that such interference is forbidden.


38 posted on 06/02/2024 12:32:29 PM PDT by USCG SimTech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Yes. And they’d better do it right.


39 posted on 06/02/2024 12:33:06 PM PDT by laplata (They want each crisis to take the greatest toll possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

40 posted on 06/02/2024 12:34:25 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (If voting made any difference, they wouldn't allow us to vote! Our 6th Jan PROTESTERS stood up! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-118 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson