re: USSC Sides With E Jean Carroll

There are literally thousands of jury verdicts that get made on less than that evidence all the time. The civil burden is a preponderance of the evidence--51%--relatively low. None of them go to SCOTUS.

That is the point of jury verdicts under our system--we leave them to the jury, and appellate courts don't overturn them unless the trial judge made some legal procedural error (admitting bad evidence, incorrect instructions, etc.). It is incredibly rare for a civil jury verdict to be overturned based on the facts or them just getting it wrong. Trial juries get tremendous deference as the initial finders of fact. That's the law, and SCOTUS honored it.

Unless you want the jury system to not mean anything, SCOTUS made the correct decision not to review. And if it weren't Trump, no one would even care, and it wouldn't have even been appealed, because he's the only person in the country who is this litigious.

Of course, there's also an argument that if it weren't Trump, the lawsuit might not have been brought in the first place, but that's not on review by SCOTUS now.

quote:

---

There's literally no evidence against Trump

---

You don't need evidence when you have a jury pool that 98% hates the defendant before a single argument is made.

quote:

---

because he's the only person in the country who is this litigious.

---

it takes a big set of balls to say something that impressively retarded

quote:

---

Yeah, affirming the judgement, siding with Carroll.

I agree it sucks, but your cope is not cutting it.

---

Perhaps you didn't read my post.

But to be clear, SCOTUS declined to hear the case (denied certiorari). It did not issue a ruling affirming the facts or the jury’s findings itself. PERIOD

As I stated what Roberts & Co did was worse IMO than if they had heard the case and found against Trump, because the result is identical, but the method is cowardly. Cope with it yourself.

quote:

---

I have zero sympathy for anyone with poor enough judgment to hire Alina Habba to represent them in a case of this import

---

So quality of the evidence doesn’t mean anything to you. Duly noted.

quote:

---

It did not issue a ruling affirming the facts or the jury’s findings

---

It didn't have to. 'Siding with' doesn't have to mean affirming the facts. She won. PERIOD.

It is you who must cope.

quote:

---

it’s illegal to molest a women.

---

I doubt that is going to stop you.

quote:

---

The appeal failed. She gets $5 mil.

---

Yes

quote:

---

You're arguing semantics, man. What useless shite is that?

---

Read Carefully ...

BECAUSE WHAT THE COWARDS DID WAS NOT ONLY TO DENY THE APPEAL, BUT TO AVOID HAVING TO REVIEW THE NY CORRUPT PROCESS LEADING TO THE CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE. AS WITH TX V PA, THIS IS NOT SIMPLY A BAD FINDING, IT IS A DERELICTION.

quote:

---

We really need a right winger gay chat board. All day, every day, right wingers try to inject gay stuff into every thread. As a straight male, I find all this right wing overt gayness isn’t appropriate for normal discussion.

---

Relax my man. They are just doing it to make you feel comfortable with your life choices. Don't get offended. We all know and we don't care that you like the taste of dong.

quote:

---

So quality of the evidence doesn’t mean anything to you. Duly noted.

---

The quality of the evidence means very little if your attorney is too incompetent to enter evidence into the record correctly. That is first trial advocacy class level work. Anyone who has the means to hire anyone he wants but hires an attorney who has never tried a civil case has very poor judgment. Add to that, he is a hugely litigious person, so he should have a Rolodex full of competant council. Hire a U12 team to play a D1 team and the outcome is cemented before the game starts.