Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Time for the Supremes to Step Up?
I understand that Justice Roberts has a serious interest in maintaining the integrity of the Court; that the Supreme Court can’t weigh in on the Trump conviction until all State appeals have been exhausted, which will almost certainly not happen until after the election.
So the biased NY appeals court can just add it to its docket as if its impact on the world is the same as some obscure sales tax case. No former president has ever been charged with a felony before. The jury in this case had to conclude that Trump was guilty of an election offense, a tax offense, or some fraud offense without being charged or tried for them. And somehow a partisan hack who should have recused himself is now in a position to pretend that 1 offense is actually 34, and that a bookkeeping offense that harmed no one is cause for incarceration. I also understand that legal experts are near unanimous in condemning the nature of the Trump prosecution for a wide array of reasons, confidently saying that there’s a phone book’s length of slam dunk bases for appeals, that at some level of appeal this farce will be overturned.
On the Powerline podcast a few weeks ago, John Yoo brought up the idea that the civic good of having the Republican candidate for president speak freely on the campaign trail far outweighs the civil good of protecting somebody by placing a gag order on Trump. Evidently the Supremes can jump in based on some judgement call.
If the Democrats can unfairly claim “convicted felon” right through the election, and possibly limit Trump’s ability to campaign, they may succeed in winning an election through lawfare. They would be playing in Roberts’ sandbox, using courts for a political purpose. Does Roberts have the stones to right a unique abuse of the justice system by bypassing the usual procedures because the usual procedures will forever handicap the electoral process (Democrats railroad a candidate, then benefit from their own intransigence even if they know the conviction will be overturned)?
Much as Roberts wants to keep the Court out of politics, it will be involved in politics if they do nothing.
Published in General
Is Roberts the only Justice who can request a hearing on this case? Can another Justice request an expedited appeal?
SCOTUS did not wait on Bush v. Gore. The Florida courts were screwing with who should decide if a hanging chad is a vote, when SCOTUS cut that crap off. I think SCOTUS can jump in if there is a Constitutional question. Heck, they may have already decided with the Trump immunity case.
This is a very reasonable take, but I doubt the Supremes will opt for expedited review. They have already refused to do so in the Jack Smith “prosecution.”
There is zero chance the NY appellate court will overturn any of the convictions.
I think if NY tries to impede Trumps ability to campaign in any significant way they may have no choice.
I think it’s not so much the actual integrity of the court, but the appearance of integrity, or just the popularity.
I think many of us here on ricochet hope that Roberts will step into the fray and go about righting a unique slam against not only an individual political opponent but to the US Constitution itself.
I found it interesting that among the first group of dictates placed into law after the American Republic was formed was the dictate that no one could use a lawyer any more. The only lawyers allowed to appear in a US court room of any jurisdiction were lawyers who were defendants in cases against themselves.
Of course that dictate was overturned in less than a decade.
In the Republic’s early days, our first president was not a lawyer. Many in Congress were not. Now it is almost a prerequisite that to run for office, one must be either an attorney, or else a business person with some deep connection to the world of finance and/or pharma.
Too many attorneys will get you the exact situation that we now face with regards to lawfare. That is, the weaponization of the entire system against the individual and against the Constitution.
Too bad the public did not return our judiciary and full legal system to that early dictate!
Something will have to be done by someone before things really unravel, but the unraveling is certainly part of the plan. Long, hot summer here we come.
A Facebook post by a woman who writes for Wisconsin Right Now: