There are more crooks under the direction of universal suffrage than in State legislatures. At least I can round up a posse and raise Cain at the private residence of my State Legislatures then vote them out or intimidate them to direct their vote based on why they were elected in the first place; can’t do that with drunks under the overpass that get paid to vote at homeless shelters, canvassers who fill in ballots at nursing homes of those who have Alzheimer’s, one issue voters who want to murder their unborn offspring at will, too many of them. 17th Amendment is the antithesis of an ingredient for a republican form of government (State representation).
Mark makes the same incorrect claim that I have seen several others make on this site—that in order to appeal, one must first post a bond.
This simply is not true. Every one is entitled to appeal, whether you post a bond or not.
Where the bond comes into play is in addressing whether you can stay (postpone) the enforcement of the judgment while the appeal is going on. If you post a bond, you can. If you don’t post a bond, then the other side can act to enforce the judgment during the pendency of the appeal. If you win the appeal, you can get a court order requiring the plaintiff to disgorge any amounts collected.
Now, for Mark, allowing Mann to collect pending appeal may be extremely disruptive to his practice and business.
Given the unique circumstances of Mark’s case, where the punitive damages awarded are so disproportional to the actual damages (and hence so facially unconstitutional), Mark should apply (first to the trial court and then to the appellate court) for an order either eliminating, or at least substantially reducing, the amount of the bond he is required to post.