Mark Levin: Trump Should Immediately Appeal Any Conviction to SCOTUS

[roamer_1]

IMHO I don't think the SCOTUS would take up this case.

Too early. He has to run up the normal appeals chain. once he goes as far as he can in the state, THEN MAYBE he can turn it federal and walk it up the federal appeals chain...

That's how it works. He's a long way off from the SCOTUS... Though not so far from a friendlier court, I'd reckon.

[libertybele]

Too early. He has to run up the normal appeals chain. once he goes as far as he can in the state, THEN MAYBE he can turn it federal and walk it up the federal appeals chain...

That's how it works. He's a long way off from the SCOTUS... Though not so far from a friendlier court, I'd reckon.

Friendlier court in NY?  Doubtful.

[roamer_1]

Mark knows it doesn't work that way.  Gotta go through the NY state appeal process first, culminating with the State Supreme Court, before heading to federal court.

That's right.

[roamer_1]

[...] after a presumably adverse NY State Supreme Court ruling? [...]

I am no Tump fan. But I will be surprised if this verdict is not thrown out on appeal. Once outside of the NYC jurisdiction, I think the flavor will change immediately.

[roamer_1]

That would be tolerable had it been a fair trial. But it wasn't.

That's right. He was railroaded.

[Bigun]

So gross violations of a person's 6th amendment rights have to wait while a state court continues playing games?

NO! I don't think so!

[DB]

Because a federal presidential election is involved it may well take a short cut direct to SCOTUS. One state's actions are affecting the other remaining states.

[roamer_1]

So gross violations of a person's 6th amendment rights have to wait while a state court continues playing games?

NO! I don't think so!

In the abstract, yes. Right now one judge has acted out and violated his rights (on several counts). It's up to the state to fix that, to show the state had no meaningful part in that dereliction. If the state won't do that, it shows a greater problem. THAT is the problem to put before SCOTUS.

[roamer_1]

Friendlier court in NY?  Doubtful.

I will not believe the entire NY judicial system is corrupt until I see it.

[Bigun]

In the abstract, yes. Right now one judge has acted out and violated his rights (on several counts). It's up to the state to fix that, to show the state had no meaningful part in that dereliction. If the state won't do that, it shows a greater problem. THAT is the problem to put before SCOTUS.

I don't think so! SCOTUS can and should fix it.

[Bigun]

I will not believe the entire NY judicial system is corrupt until I see it.

I sincerely hope you are right but very much doubt you are.

[roamer_1]

I don't think so! SCOTUS can and should fix it.

It would be very hard to make that appear unpolitical... Just shove it right to the top, to a friendly Federal Supreme Court. The Law would be better served if its own fail-safes were allowed to work.

The electoral interference is a real angle, and will amount to a crisis... but it is not one yet that cannot be fixed regularly...

And a good portion of the political weight is Tumpy's fault - He should have played this out in the courts and left off the election with so many counts against him. H should have stepped aside.

[roamer_1]

I sincerely hope you are right but very much doubt you are.

We shall see, no doubt.

[Bigun]

It would be very hard to make that appear unpolitical... Just shove it right to the top, to a friendly Federal Supreme Court. The Law would be better served if its own fail-safes were allowed to work.

The electoral interference is a real angle, and will amount to a crisis... but it is not one yet that cannot be fixed regularly...

And a good portion of the political weight is Tumpy's fault - He should have played this out in the courts and left off the election with so many counts against him. H should have stepped aside.

So, I guess should have Roy Moore! NO! The process IS the punishment and I'm sick to death of that!

[roamer_1]

So, I guess should have Roy Moore! NO! The process IS the punishment and I'm sick to death of that!

I'd look more to DeLay, who stepped down to fight in court to preserve us all from sullying his office.
That was the right thing to do, even though I wish he were there still.

[Bigun]

I'd look more to DeLay, who stepped down to fight in court to preserve us all from sullying his office.
That was the right thing to do, even though I wish he were there still.

I vehemently disagree that it was the right thing to do and so does he but his health forced him to do it. Just like pack animals they attack when they know you are weakened.

[catfish1957]

I'd look more to DeLay, who stepped down to fight in court to preserve us all from sullying his office.
That was the right thing to do, even though I wish he were there still.

Hammer got the Trump treatment big time.  Travis County, TX is as bad as Lower Manhattan

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Just to clarify a weird judicial anomaly, the highest level of appellate court in New York is actually called their "Court of Appeals".  Their "Supreme Court" (or actually "Courts"),  are their highest level of trial courts.  Their first level of appellate courts are technically Appellate Divisions of the Supreme (trial) courts).   Confusing when you have to cite to those courts.

So the case will go from the state Supreme Court, to the Appellate Divisions, and then to the New York State Court of Appeals.  If Trump loses in all those - which I do not think he will - it could then go to the SCOTUS.  However, the SCOTUS appeal is discretionary, and even then can only happen if there is a a federal issue involved. If the case comes down just to an interpretation of New York state law, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction.

One thing of which people should be aware is that an appeal of this kind is not rapid. The first thing that has to happen is that a certified, finalized court transcript and all of the exhibits have to be finalized so that the complete record can then be sent to the appellate division.  And before that, all the post-trial motions in front of the judge must be argued.

So there is basically no chance that any level of appeal will be decided in this case prior to the election.

My thoughts are there has never been a case like this in the history of the US, ie - a former President and front runner for the next President, to be convicted in a state court.

One cannot simply use precedent to decide how this proceeds as the nation's laws are at stake.

And that means time involved is an extremely strong consideration in resolution of the matter.

[libertybele]

My thoughts are there has never been a case like this in the history of the US, ie - a former President and front runner for the next President, to be convicted in a state court.

One cannot simply use precedent to decide how this proceeds as the nation's laws are at stake.

And that means time involved is an extremely strong consideration in resolution of the matter.

No there isn't any precedent other than how prior appeals have been handled in NY.

Also, I don't believe that SCOTUS can intervene.  They cannot decide at this point the judgement of a lower court.  Besides, if they should overturn this decision now, I believe you will see the leftists revolt.  Notice also, that there isn't the chaos in the street that Trump thought would happen should he be convicted. I'm not advocating for any kind of insurrection, but again J6 was a warning shot to his supporters and they just convicted an ex-president.  That makes people think twice of consequences for their actions.  It is very clear that there is one set of rules for DEMS and another set for PUBS.  That has been for quite awhile; people are just waking up to that fact.

[roamer_1]

My thoughts are there has never been a case like this in the history of the US, ie - a former President and front runner for the next President, to be convicted in a state court.

One cannot simply use precedent to decide how this proceeds as the nation's laws are at stake.

And that means time involved is an extremely strong consideration in resolution of the matter.

I think that's right - But so long as it could be done in a timely manner, I think following proper order would be fair play - And by the time transcripting and post-verdict motions and whatnot are handled, it's pretty unlikely to find resolution before the fact of the election anyway.

That's why I think this would be better served with Tumpy stepping down. Even for this to be shoveled up to the SCOTUS would be a monumental task to complete in four months. And the decision will very likely kick it back to the lower courts for a more judicious proceeding anyway... Which prolongs the final end all that much more.

It is very unlikely to be resolved within this election cycle.

[roamer_1]

Also, I don't believe that SCOTUS can intervene.

Oh, I think they can intervene... I question whether that would be wise.

[mystery-ak]

Oh, I think they can intervene... I question whether that would be wise.

Remember they intervened in Gore v Bush...they could do it here too as this affects everyone in the US who votes...

[roamer_1]

Remember they intervened in Gore v Bush...they could do it here too as this affects everyone in the US who votes...

Right. Unprecedented... Constitutional crisis and all that... I get it.
But unprecedented issues are where liberties ate taken away. Unintended consequences are never measured.
I think it unwise.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

My thoughts are there has never been a case like this in the history of the US, ie - a former President and front runner for the next President, to be convicted in a state court.

One cannot simply use precedent to decide how this proceeds as the nation's laws are at stake.

And that means time involved is an extremely strong consideration in resolution of the matter.

I think you will only find the Supreme Court stepping in if a sentence is imposed and is not stayed pending appeal.  Otherwise, if the sentence is stayed, there is no urgent need to hear the appeal.

The Supreme Court really needs the NY appellate system to take the first cracks at this conviction on the merits.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think that's right - But so long as it could be done in a timely manner, I think following proper order would be fair play - And by the time transcripting and post-verdict motions and whatnot are handled, it's pretty unlikely to find resolution before the fact of the election anyway.

That's why I think this would be better served with Tumpy stepping down. Even for this to be shoveled up to the SCOTUS would be a monumental task to complete in four months. And the decision will very likely kick it back to the lower courts for a more judicious proceeding anyway... Which prolongs the final end all that much more.

It is very unlikely to be resolved within this election cycle.

He can't step down.  That basically rewards the Dems for their abuse of the legal process.  He's got to stay in the race so the voters get to signal whether they approve or disapprove of what the Democrats are doing.  And like it or not - and you and I don't - that's who primary voters selected even though they knew this was a possibility all along.   He's the GOP nominee.