221
Furious Trump told Speaker Johnson ‘we have to overturn this’ after conviction
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
221 points (97.4% liked)
politics
19223 readers
3202 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't even understand what they're asking for here? Are they suggesting that the Supreme Court can overturn a state conviction? I didn't think that was allowed, but if any court is corrupt enough to do it I suppose it's this one.
The SC is allowed to weigh in on a State matter, but its only supposed to happen when it concerns something that the Federal Government has a say in, or a matter that includes a dispute between states. However, the SC itself if the sole arbiter of whether it reaches that threshold or not, so who knows what excuse they might pull out of Harlan Crow's jet.
One thing that is certain, however, is that it cannot act at all until all appeals in NY are exhausted. So that means the SC can't just zoom in and grab the case unless his appeals first get turned down by all courts through the highest appellate court in NY. Then his lawyers can ask the SC as a last resort, and we'll see where that leads.
You can thank Jack Smith for setting that "can't skip" precedent not too long ago... 😂
They'll do it, then it'll be contested, and go to court. It will be appealed up to the SC where they'll decide it's allowed.
So, you're not going to want to hear this but SCOTUS is the court you appeal to after you lose at your state supreme court. SCOTUS rarely takes the case and even more rarely sides with the convicted person. If they vacate Trump's conviction it would be incredibly hypocritical considering their treatment of other people with real problems with their convictions.
Like they care.
Exactly. Pope Alito don't GAF about things like optics or morality or even any kind of internal consistency.
I think it is required to be hypocritical if you are Republican.