3 Whisky Happy HourThe Ricochet PodcastGLoP CultureBeyond the Polls with Henry OlsenParsing Immigration PolicyFederalist Radio HourWhat the Hell Is Going OnFreedom to LearnDaily SignalThe Erick Erickson ShowChicks on The Right3 Martini LunchThe Learning CurveThe Conservative Woman’s GuideHeritage ExplainsNot Dead YetGiving VenturesWho Funds that?The Radio Free Hillsdale HourThe Glenn ShowFirst Things PodcastCall Me Back - with Dan SenorHillsdale DialoguesLaw Talk with Epstein, Yoo & CookeThe LibertarianThe Report Card with Nat MalkusThe Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’ConnorThe American IdeaMadison’s NotesConservative Crossroads with Henry OlsenMom WarsThe Back of the BookGray MattersMartini ShotThe Dave Carter ShowThe Powerline ShowIn DissentHeard at HeritageSmart Girl PoliticsJames Lileks’ The DinerCase in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and CultureJobMakersOne on One with Robert DoarHomeschooling Journeys with Curious MikeHubwonk

Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

  1. Main Feed/
  2. Time for the Supremes to Step Up?
June 2, 2024 at 3:32 PM

Time for the Supremes to Step Up?

Joker
@Joker

To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

Join to bookmark22likesJoin to like8comments

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.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (8)

Sign in to commentSign in
  • CHARTER MEMBER

    To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    cdor@cdor·2y

    Is Roberts the only Justice who can request a hearing on this case? Can another Justice request an expedited appeal?

  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)@DonG·2y
    Joker (View Post):
    I understand that Justice Roberts has a serious interest in maintaining the integrity of the Court. And 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.

    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.

  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Hoyacon@Hoyacon·2y

    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."

  • CHARTER MEMBER

    To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Kozak@Kozak·2y

    There is zero chance the NY appellate court will overturn any of the convictions.

  • CHARTER MEMBER

    To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Kozak@Kozak·2y
    ReplyingtoHoyacon

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    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.”

    I think if NY tries to impede Trumps ability to campaign in any significant way they may have no choice.

Scroll for later comments
+3 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of eight comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.

Trending

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Join Ricochet

Get the Ricochet app

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play
  • •
  • •