Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
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.
Discussion (8)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
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.
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.
There is zero chance the NY appellate court will overturn any of the convictions.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I think if NY tries to impede Trumps ability to campaign in any significant way they may have no choice.
You're seeing five of eight comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.