What, about this specific case, REMOTELY gives the USSC jurisdiction before NY appeals are done?
Nothing, is what.
It’s a federal case that was unlawfully decided by a corrupt Kangaroo Court in New York.
And what is your legal expertise?
“What, about this specific case, REMOTELY gives the USSC jurisdiction before NY appeals are done?”
When the Supremes stopped the hanging chad counts in Florida. Also the Supremes have the right to certiorari and taking over the entire case.
It is to stop a gross violation of his civil rights.
Also, the Federal Government had no rights to do a half a dozen acts in the south in the 50s and 60s. Governmental civil rights violations with immediate national importance heads right to the supremes.
That’s what.
“What, about this specific case, REMOTELY gives the USSC jurisdiction before NY appeals are done?
Nothing, is what.”
And FreeRepublics great legal intellect speaks.........BWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA
Your guy Bush was elected President because of Supreme Court involvement so I’d sit this one out
This is a presidential election interference situation. Trumps lawyers can and will bypass the appellate court and ask for an emergency hearing at SCOTUS. If Trump is sitting in jail or house arrest there is no way they won’t step in.
Recall the SCOTUS jumped in the 2000 Florida election mess, overruled all the court actions below them and put immediate end to the election and the forever counting, hanging chads and all that.
Depends on how gross it gets. If the judge decides to jail Trump or prevent him from campaigning, it becomes a minor court interfering with a national election.
If they jail Trump over this, and no one stops it ASAP, there is no USA. Any podunk judge can find an excuse to jail just about anyone they disagree with.
What they could do is issue a stay on anything affecting Trump’s campaigning until the appeals have been fully heard.
Would it be highly unusual? Yeah. So what? So is what NYC is doing!
You are correct. Of course the True Believers will take issue with your factual statement and, in what they consider to be a thoughtful argument, will engage in ad hominem attacks.
“What, about this specific case, REMOTELY gives the USSC jurisdiction before NY appeals are done?”
Any number of famous legal experts say the Supreme Court can take it up directly. Are you a famous legal expert? Should you not look them up and correct them and Trump?
Bush vs Gore. The controlling precedent.
“ What, about this specific case, REMOTELY gives the USSC jurisdiction before NY appeals are done?
Nothing, is what.”
———————
If he is the official nominee before the sentencing hearing, that calculus will likely change.
The denial of due process. File writ of common law. Not hard.
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.
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
Deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law sounds like a pretty good ground for jurisdiction to me.
The fact that them made FEDERAL felonies out of a STATE misdemeanor. How about that?
LOL!!! Why ask the question if you already know the answer?
BTW, your wrong.
Clown.