Posted on 06/02/2024 4:55:46 PM PDT by McGruff
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
The “Sentencing” for not having done anything wrong will be, conveniently for the Fascists, 4 days before the Republican National Convention. A Radical Left Soros backed D.A., who ran on a platform of “I will get Trump,” reporting to an “Acting” Local Judge, appointed by the Democrats, who is HIGHLY CONFLICTED, will make a decision which will determine the future of our Nation? The United States Supreme Court MUST DECIDE!
Jun 02, 2024, 6:51 PM
Bush v. Gore was a petition from a final judgment of the Florida Supreme Court under 28 USC 1257. SCOTUS won’t have the same jurisdiction in this case until there is a judgment of the NY Court of Appeals.
If and when Trump is placed in “state custody,” meaning either put in jail or placed under some other judicial restraint, then he can file a habeas petition in federal court. That normally requires exhaustion of state appellate remedies first, but there is an exception where “ circumstances exist that render such [state corrective] process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant”
The habeas writ can be filed directly with SCOTUS without going through the lower courts first, but such direct writs are extremely rarely granted. This is obviously an extraordinary case, so it could happen.
If the judge simply allows Trump to remain at liberty pending appeal, however, then there would be no federal have as jurisdiction, and he would have to proceed through the state appellate process and then petition SCOTUS for certiorari from the final judgment of the NY Court of Appeals (NY’s highest court).
You are partially right. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction today, nor will it have certiorari jurisdiction until there is a final judgment of the NY Court of Appeals.
However, if and when Trump is put in jail or placed under some other judicial restraint (“state custody”), then he could file a petition for writ of havens corpus directly with SCOTUS under 28 USC s. 2254. SCOTUS rarely grants such petitions that are not filed in district court first, but it does have jurisdiction.
Of course, the NY judge could avoid this by simply allowing Trump to remain at liberty pending his appeal.
*habeas corpus, not “havens corpus” of course
bttt
How about 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.
Would "The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump (IND-71543-23)" qualify for an original jurisdiction hearing by SCOTUS?
-PJ
Based on the CNN article that I posted in the link (which you are free to dispute, given the source), the "plenary power of appointing Electors" has limits.
Yes, the legislatures of the several states have the plenary power to choose the method of selecting Electors. They exercise this power by means of their legislative process, and the executive of the state signs the bill into law just like any other. Once that bill is passed into law, the state legislatures are obligated to follow those laws until either: 1) some trigger in the law gives the state the power to immediately respond (like failing to certify in time for the Electoral College safe-harbor date), or 2) the legislature changes the law again via its normal legislative procedures.
Plenary power does NOT mean the legislature can simply waive away the existing law and act unilaterally if it wants to. To do so would make them no different than kings.
If the Texas legislature wanted to do as you suggest, they will have to call a special session to change the existing law. What would that new law be? Would it be that the state of Texas hereby appoints only Republican Electors and all elections for Electors from now on are hereby canceled? Would it be that the legislature of Texas will assume the vote for Electors and all elections for Electors from now on are hereby canceled? Or would it be that the election for Electors for the year 2024 only is hereby suspended and the state Legislature will choose the Electors directly?
-PJ
“Please open your Constitution, and when you find “political party”, “official nominee”, or “presidential election”, come on back and we can discuss those things.”
————
So the right to free speech, due process and to know the charges against one’s self, as well as the right of the people to a “republican [small r] form of government“ (which necessarily requires that candidates be able to freely address voters) - these mean nothing under our Constitution?
Look, I get that the words in your quote aren’t in the Constitution, but there are certain practical things that, even if not directly spelled out, are required by necessity in order for specifically enumerated rights to be exercised. A perfect example of that is that the 2nd Amendment necessarily prohibits the banning of ammunition for firearms, because to do so would effectively ban firearms. Similarly, this situation with a complete sham trial, in which a low-level state court was interpreting federal law in a criminal case, as well as the denial of Trump’s individual Constitutional rights, necessarily affects other rights of his, and of the people in general. Perhaps you should go back and study the Constitution a bit more - this is why we have courts, to interpret laws and the unique fact patterns surrounding them, because the law is sometimes silent and sometimes quite ambiguous.
I’m so glad I’m an Independent voter. I think your party is filled with elites who talk a good game to get votes then stab the people in the back the first chance they get. They are intoxicated with power and wealth. Trump threatens both .
Your party should have been fighting this lawfare strongly and aggressively from the moment they knew it was devised because of the threat which would lead to the destruction of the justice system and ultimately the downfall of the country. Instead they kept quiet hoping this tactic would take out Trump.
Your party is not filled with just ethical office holders who want the best for our country. The GOP is filled with corrupt people who allow their thirst for power control their actions. There are a mere scant number of Republicans I would cast a vote for. President Trump tops that list.
Insult me all you like but this time, this time you rank and file voters will finally hear some very uncomfortable truths and sir my sentiments are shared by many.
Sadly, I agree. That’s why they stood by and hoped lawfare would get rid of Trump. He threatens their elite world. The blind arrogance they have convinces them that lawfare would never turn on them.
Also the issue of judge telling jury they did not need to agree on what the underlining crime was supposed to be. There is a 1999 SCOTUS decision in which I think they said it must e unanimous in all factors of the crime one is accused of?
And the "conservatives" who hate Trump.
Okay -I’ll bite.
What’s a “board certified” appellate lawyer?
Mark Levin said they took a misdemeanor State charge and made a federal felony case out of it. So since it’s Federal I don’t see any reason why the Supreme Court couldn’t step in. And I think they should do that on an emergency basis, because this case is so egregious. They should also admonish this judge and call for his removal from the bench and disbarment of the prosecutor. This case is that bad
Deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law sounds like a pretty good ground for jurisdiction to me.
nice explanation...thank you for that...
Since when does the State of New York have the right to decide who the President is?
Take it up with Mark Levin; I’m just trying to pass on what he said and probably doing a poor job of it.
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.