- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Another judge with an attitude adjustment from appeals.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:06 pm
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:06 pm
Sorry judge. Not so fast.
quote:
A federal appeals court in New York on Thursday said that President Donald Trump should be allowed to make a case for why federal courts should review his hush money conviction for possible conflicts with the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity decision last year. A panel of three judges sent the case back to a district court judge to address certain questions raised by the Supreme Court’s decision and determine whether Trump meets the threshold to be heard a second time. The district court judge has already twice denied Trump’s effort to move the hush money case into federal court.
4
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:10 pm to CleverUserName
I will get my crack legal dream team on this to explain in layman terms to us peasants.
Slow, Boosie, this decision have any legs?
Slow, Boosie, this decision have any legs?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:11 pm to CleverUserName
Bragg and Merchan should be arrested.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:17 pm to Rebel
quote:
Slow, Boosie, this decision have any legs?
I can pretty much give you their response and I do not have a law degree from Cracker Jack school of Law Lake Charles campus. OMB.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:17 pm to CleverUserName
But there is no lawfare. Judges need to be brought up on charges when they use their office to conduct such activities.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:22 pm to Rebel
quote:
Slow, Boosie, this decision have any legs?
Commentary in the earlier thread on this
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Commentary in the earlier thread on this
Where's that? Earlier today? Earlier this week?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:30 pm to SallysHuman
Like an hour ago?
It's being senet back to the trial court for determination on this. What's PROBABLY going to be the focus is how the immunity aspect affects particular witnesses and/or evidence, not that Trump himself is immune.
This ruling came down AFTER the trial/conviction of Trump, so trying to tie this specific issue to "lawfare" (whatever that means) is kind of silly.
It's being senet back to the trial court for determination on this. What's PROBABLY going to be the focus is how the immunity aspect affects particular witnesses and/or evidence, not that Trump himself is immune.
This ruling came down AFTER the trial/conviction of Trump, so trying to tie this specific issue to "lawfare" (whatever that means) is kind of silly.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Like an hour ago?
I missed it... will maybe go find it, thank you!
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
Weird slow fanni pro suddenly gaf about legal threads.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
Which other thread?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This ruling came down AFTER the trial/conviction of Trump
So that means the “lawfare” label does not have a credence because of timing?
quote:
Trump, so trying to tie this specific issue to "lawfare" (whatever that means) is kind of silly.
Well it means the ruling was probably affected by a judge that is not bipartisan. Let’s look at his political affiliation. I will give you a guess. For you to still be claiming the “lawfare” is not real has reduced your credibility to the ranks of pond scum. It is laughable.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News