- 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: Can The Supreme Court Intervene After Trump’s Conviction? Legal Experts Say Yes.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:46 pm to cajunangelle
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:46 pm to cajunangelle
Pretty sure that every single democrat who is a little leery of voting to expand (and therefor stack) the Supreme Court would quickly reverse their stance if that happened.
0
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:47 pm to HoopsAurora
quote:
he has no recourse despite ALL of the myriad ways this judge violated his civil right?
the USSC can only take up legitimate constitutional issues.
The NY courts have the authority to rule on all procedural issues (assuming no Constitutional issues exist with NY criminal procedure)
But the issue is that outside of basically one scenario, even if the USSC rules in Trump's favor, the case doesn't go away. It gets sent back to NY and they have to do the whole trial over again (without the offending rulings/legal issues that were deemed to violate his rights).
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:10 pm to cajunangelle
Can they? Yes, but I don’t think they will.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
This is not so much about Trump as it's about election interference and Secondly they have to rule on immunity. Every former and future president is at risk if this case stands
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:30 pm to 756
Immunity would not apply unless USSC gives absolute immunity, which is unlikely
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:44 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
Legal Experts Say Yes
You mean Republican legal experts, don’t you?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:46 pm to Born2rock
Born4cocks with the zinger.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
And what about election interference?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:21 pm to cajunangelle
I think if they were to imprison Trump for these “felonies” they would step in. Outside of something like that I doubt they touch it.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:36 pm to cajunangelle
If these are the same legal experts that sold you on the notion that the election was stolen, I don’t think this will end how you think it will.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:38 pm to reddy tiger
quote:... just leave it at that.
I don’t think
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:40 pm to cajunangelle
The SC should curb stomp this Stalinist show trial and all of its perps.
Posted on 6/1/24 at 12:25 am to DawginSC
quote:
But that is a bit misleading in that it suggests they could rule Trump's treatment to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court doesn't have that power. They can rule the law Trump was convicted of as unconstitutional. They can rule that a former president can not be tried for crimes committed while they were not president. But they can't rule on his specific treatment in the case.
Miranda v Arizona was about the defendants treatment. They did not rule he was arrested using an unconstitutional law, and he was not a president. Miranda's rights were violated before court, so you could make that distinction, but it would not make sense to think your constitutional rights end when you step inside a courtroom.
Posted on 6/1/24 at 12:42 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
SFP will argue for a million fricking years that everyone on earth is wrong and he is right just like he always does
This is the most succinct yet thorough analysis of a poster in TD history.
Posted on 6/1/24 at 12:58 am to cajunangelle
quote:
Text this to SFP Alvin.
This is stupid. SFP said the Supreme Court could intervene if they wanted to.
Don't make me defend him.
In reality, the Supreme Court will not unless it gets to the point of significantly impacting Trump's ability to run for president which could be seen as a harbinger for future campaign tactics that impact elections
This post was edited on 6/1/24 at 1:01 am
Posted on 6/1/24 at 1:33 am to joshnorris14
If Trump's constitutional rights were violated which they were numerous times, Trump can petition directly to the Supreme Court. What is laughable is that the felony charges required a conspiracy to hide another crime. They never said what that crime was or charged him with one. I would love to see that Idiot prosecutor before the Supreme Court trying to justify that crap show. If I was Trump, the moment the charges were dismissed I would sue the State of New York for 200 million.
Posted on 6/1/24 at 4:13 am to DawginSC
quote:
The Supreme Court doesn't have that power.
quote:
But they can't rule on his specific treatment in the case.
quote:
But if it was, the US Supreme court cannot rule on that
Who do you think is the final arbiter on what the Supreme Court can and cannot do?
Posted on 6/1/24 at 4:15 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Doesn’t he have assburgers?
He has symptoms of the rarer form - assweiners.
Posted on 6/1/24 at 5:12 am to DawginSC
quote:
declaring the law to be unconstitutional.
What law? The only law Trump supposedly broke, was a misdemeanor that was past Statute of Limitations….
The Supreme Court can certainly rule that Trumps constitutional rights were violated by this DA and judge. Trump has a constitutional right to know what crime he is accused of committing and a right to defend himself. He was not given those rights. Based on the judges instructions and stupid metaphor, one of the jurors coulda “thought” he broke the law by jaywalking the morning one of the checks were mailed and that would mean Trumps guilty of a felony
This post was edited on 6/1/24 at 5:14 am
Posted on 6/1/24 at 7:01 am to 756
quote:
And what about election interference?
What about it? Trump wasn't charged with this.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News