337
Trump Says Supreme Court Should Bail Him Out of Criminal Conviction
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
337 points (96.7% liked)
News
23310 readers
3489 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As far as I know, the Supreme Court can't get involved in a state matter until all appeals in that state have been resolved, and even then won't take up the matter unless there is some connection to Federal law (and that connection was raised at some point in the trial by one of the parties).
But this court might invoke the ancient rite of "Because I said so" to justify letting Trump off the hook, I suppose.
I think the Florida Supreme Court was still dealing with Bush v Gore when the Supreme Court jumped in. Although, I guess that one did have a more direct relationship to Federal law. But it was 100% bullshit, regardless.
Ah yes, Bush v Gore. I'm fairly certain that Y2K is where our current shitty timeline diverged from the good one.
No, it was 2012. The mayans were totally right, it just wasn't the sudden flip switch end of days people expected. :p
Personally, I blame the asshat that shot Bobby Kennedy.
That's when the Matrix glitched out and now we're all living in human battery hell.
"Mr. Architect, please, try the Utopia setting again. I promise we won't reject it!"
If that wasn't tbe most boomer bullshit. "We met everyone's needs, and people still weren't happy." Fuck outta here, like you couldn't drop every person who ever lived naked on a beach with margaritas and nachos for them to spend eternity.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals
A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari," which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case.
So yes, they can't do it until all normal avenues are exhausted. I'm not sure it is required to have anything to do with federal law though.
This is only because how the process normally works. But if they really wanted to get involved there's not really much that could stop them