- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How does Trump’s half billon dollar bond in NY not violate the 8th amendment?
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:24 am to Revelator
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:24 am to Revelator
Does the excessive bail prohibition apply in civil matters such as this one? I don't know the answer to this, but I think of bail as only applying to criminal matters. If limited to criminal matters, then there is your answer on bail. It just would not apply.
Here, the judgment is 464 mm, so I don't see why the bond requirement is excessive; you generally have to post bond to cover the judgment. The problem, though, and it strikes me as a huge problem for the state, is that the judgment itself is an excessive fine and therefore violative of the 8th Am.
Here, the judgment is 464 mm, so I don't see why the bond requirement is excessive; you generally have to post bond to cover the judgment. The problem, though, and it strikes me as a huge problem for the state, is that the judgment itself is an excessive fine and therefore violative of the 8th Am.
2
Posted on 3/19/24 at 11:36 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Here, the judgment is 464 mm, so I don't see why the bond requirement is excessive; you generally have to post bond to cover the judgment. The problem, though, and it strikes me as a huge problem for the state, is that the judgment itself is an excessive fine and therefore violative of the 8th Am.
I'm not sure it's a violation of the 8th amendment but I admittedly haven't looked into it.
But your post is what most are skipping over. It's a bond to cover appeal. Which is normal and if the practice is the full amount of judgment then the problem is the absurdity of the judgment, not the bond (in theory). I'm sure there is some constitutional argument to be made about how it effectively eliminates the right to appeal.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 3:07 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Here, the judgment is 464 mm, so I don't see why the bond requirement is excessive; you generally have to post bond to cover the judgment. The problem, though, and it strikes me as a huge problem for the state, is that the judgment itself is an excessive fine and therefore violative of the 8th Am.
This is correct. They don't know what they're talking about, mixing up civil and criminal.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News