cuz1961
Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. I never said this case could never get to the Supreme Court. I said there is no way to DIRECTLY appeal it to the Supreme Court. Because there isn’t. I would love to know they theory to bring it there NOW.
73 posted on 5/29/2024, 12:38:41 PM by CraigEsq (,)
No he can't. Why does everyone think this is an option?
15 posted on 5/29/2024, 9:55:39 AM by CraigEsq (,)
\\
Reply | To 15 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Az Joe
Prove what?
25 posted on 5/29/2024, 10:11:47 AM by CraigEsq (,)
//
There's no process to appeal from a state court other than the highest court of the state to the Supreme Court. End of Story.
See 28 USC 1257:
“a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States.”
37 posted on 5/29/2024, 10:35:29 AM by CraigEsq (,)
//
To: cuz1961
“the rest of that statute you left out
(b)For the purposes of this section, the term “highest court of a State” includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.”
Yes, I left it out as completely irrelevant since we're not in the District of Columbia.
47 posted on 5/29/2024, 10:58:33 AM by CraigEsq (,)
//
: butterdezillion
You can appeal a decision from the highest court of a state to SCOTUS on constitutional grounds. But it has to be federal - a state high court is the end of the road for state law issues.
Yes - Habeas Corpus could eventually get to the SCOTUS. After State Court appeals are exhausted, a writ is filed in Federal District Court, appealed to the Circuit Court, then to the Supreme Court. And I'm a little rusty (not a constitutional attorney) but I think it is only for sentences of incarceration (the Latin means “produce the body”).
Finally, no, a person suing a state does not get you to the Supreme Court. That happens ALL THE TIME. New York has its own court set up for just that purpose, the Court of Claims. Only States suing each other have original jurisdiction before the Supreme Court, which is quite rare.
55 posted on 5/29/2024, 11:06:26 AM by CraigEsq (,)
//
The actual text of Article III says, 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.
Why would that not apply to Trump suing the State of NY for violating his 14th Amendment right to due process?”
I've wondered that myself. But it doesn't. Practically speaking, there would be hundreds of thousands of cases a year before the Supreme Court if all cases against a State went right to the Supreme Court. My best guess is that it's been interpreted to ALLOW but not REQUIRE the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction in those matters.
Cases involving ambassadors and public ministers don't go right to the SCOTUS either. Only State vs. State goes right to the SCOTUS today.
64 posted on 5/29/2024, 11:58:38 AM by CraigEsq (,)
//
cuz1961
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I never said this case could never get to the Supreme Court. I said there is no way to DIRECTLY appeal it to the Supreme Court. Because there isn't. I would love to know they theory to bring it there NOW.
73 posted on 5/29/2024, 12:38:41 PM by CraigEsq (,)
//
CraigEsq
said there is no way to DIRECTLY appeal it to the Supreme Court.
\/
really ?
lets look for that DIRECTLY part shall we ?
There's no process to appeal from a state court other than the highest court of the state to the Supreme Court. End of Story.
See 28 USC 1257:
“a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States.”
37 posted on 5/29/2024, 10:35:29 AM by CraigEsq (,)
\/
. nope. DIRECTLY word nowhere to be found ...
history rewrite much ?
try and weasel word out of that one too.
spit.
if im so much of a nut , why do you even bother replying to me ?
looks like you are flak cuz im DIRECTLY over target /-).
spit
75 posted on 5/29/2024, 12:57:06 PM by cuz1961
//
To: cuz1961
Reading comprehension again is not your strong suit.
“a) Final judgments or decrees rendered BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court...”
Now... HOW do you DIRECTLY appeal from a trial court to the SCOTUS. You're the one asserting it can be done.. so HOW?
77 posted on 5/29/2024, 1:01:01 PM by CraigEsq (,)
//
To: CraigEsq
quit DIRECTLY changing the subject.
weasel
79 posted on 5/29/2024, 1:14:31 PM by cuz1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: cuz1961
you claimed you said i proved you didn't and you accuse me of reading comprehension problems ?
typical weasel move.
80 posted on 5/29/2024, 1:17:04 PM by cuz1961
//
: cuz1961
You're the one DIRECTLY changing the subject. Now tell me, HOW is Trump supposed to directly appeal to the SCOTUS, oh wise one? Surely you know.
83 posted on 5/29/2024, 1:50:03 PM by CraigEsq (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: CraigEsq
you have ADHD ?
you said, and i provided the quote and post number,
that you said
DIRECTLY
\/
i showed you never did
and then you changed the subject
and now accuse me of what you did.
try and focus , weasel .
you can dodge and weave and weasel all you want
everyone that has read this whole thread knows this is true
you are just illustrating what a weasel and liar you are
you might want to quit digging
84 posted on 5/29/2024, 2:19:43 PM by cuz1961
//
To: cuz1961
Your reading comprehension is really that bad. I NEVER SAID DIRECTLY. I said he can ONLY appeal to the SCOTUS from the HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, and provided the federal statute that says exactly that. YOU are the one who is insisting he can appeal directly. I have repeatedly asked you HOW, and you simply name call with “weasel” and “liar” and accuse me of changing the subject. That is EXACTLY what you are doing.
So put up or shut up. How can Trump appeal directly from a state trial court to the Supreme Court of the United States? How? Or are you just a know-it-all who doesn't have a freaking clue what he's talking about?
87 posted on 5/29/2024, 2:39:36 PM by CraigEsq (,)
//
To: CraigEsq
cuz1961
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I never said this case could never get to the Supreme Court. I said there is no way to DIRECTLY appeal it to the Supreme Court. Because there isn't. I would love to know they theory to bring it there NOW.
73 posted on 5/29/2024, 12:38:41 PM by CraigEsq (,)
92 posted on 5/29/2024, 2:57:14 PM by cuz1961
/\
and round and round the weasel esquire goes
are you this judge in this ?
cuz your presupositiinal circular non logic sounds just like him