Trump’s NY criminal case sentencing headed to SCOTUS

[BackAgain]

Trump asks Supreme Court to block his criminal hush money sentencing — ABC News

The president-elect has also asked New York's highest court to pause the case.

apple.news

Here is the question. How do you foresee the SCOTUS ruling?

Not a poll. Just some range of possible options.

• They will stay the sentencing while they consider Trump’s motion. OR

• They will decline to deny Judge Merchan the absolute lotto sentence Trump but will, instead, require a sentencing (and thus an entry of judgment) to complete the record on appeal. Then, later on, they will decide the bigger issue: whether, in light of their ruling on Presidential immunity, the “conviction” should be reversed and the case dismissed. OR
• 
  
• Some other ruling.

 

[BackAgain]

Personally, my guess is that they will permit the sentencing to proceed. They value things like making a COMPLETE “record” before dealing with any such matter.

 

[Meister]

Well we know where this is going.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, meanwhile, said it will respond in court papers. The emergency motion was submitted to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who hears appeals from New York.

Trump asks the Supreme Court to block sentencing in his hush money case in New York

President-elect Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to call off Friday’s sentencing in his hush money case in New York.

www.opb.org

 

[BackAgain]

Well we know where this is going.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, meanwhile, said it will respond in court papers. The emergency motion was submitted to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who hears appeals from New York.

Trump asks the Supreme Court to block sentencing in his hush money case in New York

President-elect Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to call off Friday’s sentencing in his hush money case in New York.

www.opb.org

Her bias can be overruled, however, by the full court.

So her expected decision to deny Trump’s application can be promptly scuttled by the full Court.

 

[protectionist]

They will uphold their own decision of presidential immunity.

BREAKING: TRUMP WINS! Supreme Court Rules 6-3 on Presidential Immunity - "Court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers" | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Edgetho]

Trump will lose this appeal to SCOTUS. Because Judges continue to operate on the fallacy that Juries are without bias in Hyper-Partisan political cases.

This is not much different than Jim Crow Juries handing out ridiculous verdicts to Blacks in the Southern Democrat South.

It does serve one purpose, however. It shows The American People, once again, that we really did make the right choice for POTUS.

 

[BackAgain]

The bottom line — in my estimation — is this:

The case will proceed to sentencing. Merchan (via the court clerk) will then enter the judgment of conviction and sentence.

It will be appealed. Within the hostile political confines of NY, the appeals will fail. Then, the conviction goes back to SCOTUS, on a complete record.

I suppose the predictions for how SCOTUS will then deal with Bragg’s legal fiasco remains a matter of some other thread. But if and when SCOTUS takes the appeal, and I think that they will take the case, everyone will finally see why Bragg’s indictment was invalid.

 

[toobfreak]

Here is the question. How do you foresee the SCOTUS ruling?

I see problems but with a fairly positive outcome.

As I understand it, SCOTUS will not be able to go back and review bad evidence, seedy courtroom procedures, dubious jury instructions or other mischief by the lawyers, all they can look at is whether there was any legally untoward and unsupportable behavior by the JUDGE.

The good news is that the judge had a conflict of interest (his daughter) among other things and should have recused himself from the case.

It may or may not result in their overturning the conviction.

 

[Dragonlady]

Personally, my guess is that they will permit the sentencing to proceed. They value things like making a COMPLETE “record” before dealing with any such matter.

The Supreme Court will not throw out a jury conviction because it undermines the rule of law, and it relates entirely to personal conduct.

 

[Oddball]

Personally, my guess is that they will permit the sentencing to proceed. They value things like making a COMPLETE “record” before dealing with any such matter.

I think that's where we're at...I'd wager that one of the justices is likely to stipulate that such is the case....Scalia was somewhat famous for that.

 

[Oddball]

The Supreme Court will not throw out a jury conviction because it undermines the rule of law, and it relates entirely to personal conduct.

You moonbat shit biscuits have zero business throwing around the phrase "rule of law" after the Hunter travesty.

So STFU.

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[BackAgain]

The Supreme Court will not throw out a jury conviction because it undermines the rule of law, and it relates entirely to personal conduct.

Many higher courts have overturned conviction in the past. Doing so doesn’t undermine the rule of law whatsoever.

And, here, the “law” is absurd. Even if Trump had done anything along the lines of what they claimed about business records, that’s a misdemeanor. But misdemeanor prosecutions were time barred.

So, Bragg caved in to some libtards and agreed to allege that Trump made false entries his business records to further or to conceal some other “crime.” And he made that “other” crime an unspecified multiple choice matter. So the jury verdict can’t stand because it may not have been a unanimous verdict on that “other” crime.

Also, to the extent that Bragg and Merchan used a r allowed the use of evidence emanating from Trump’s days in office, that essentially neutralized the Presidential election immunity ruling.

There are several other bases to toss this conviction.

But that’s down the road. For now, the question remains whether SCOTUS will issue a stay on the scheduled sentencing.

We shall see.

 

[BackAgain]

You moonbat shit biscuits have zero business throwing around the phrase "rule of law" after the Hunter travesty.

So STFU.

PHRASE OF THE DAY!

moonbat shit biscuits

 

[1srelluc]

All I have heard is pretty much all will wait till a sentence is rendered.

 

[Rambunctious]

Trump will lose this appeal to SCOTUS. Because Judges continue to operate on the fallacy that Juries are without bias in Hyper-Partisan political cases.

This is not much different than Jim Crow Juries handing out ridiculous verdicts to Blacks in the Southern Democrat South.

It does serve one purpose, however. It shows The American People, once again, that we really did make the right choice for POTUS.

The case should have been dismissed after the immunity ruling by the SC.... Merchan is ignoring their ruling and so I bet the SC when they get this case will order a mistrial so the white house staff who were dragged in as witnesses can be excluded from the case.... that will probably tank the case which is what should have happened two months ago....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump asks Supreme Court to block his criminal hush money sentencing — ABC News

The president-elect has also asked New York's highest court to pause the case.

apple.news

Here is the question. How do you foresee the SCOTUS ruling?

Not a poll. Just some range of possible options.

• They will stay the sentencing while they consider Trump’s motion. OR

• They will decline to deny Judge Merchan the absolute lotto sentence Trump but will, instead, require a sentencing (and thus an entry of judgment) to complete the record on appeal. Then, later on, they will decide the bigger issue: whether, in light of their ruling on Presidential immunity, the “conviction” should be reversed and the case dismissed. OR
• 
  
• Some other ruling.

They will let him be sentenced.

 

[justoffal]

Personally, my guess is that they will permit the sentencing to proceed. They value things like making a COMPLETE “record” before dealing with any such matter.

Agreed

 

[justoffal]

The case should have been dismissed after the immunity ruling by the SC.... Merchan is ignoring their ruling and so I bet the SC when they get this case will order a mistrial so the white house staff who were dragged in as witnesses can be excluded from the case.... that will probably tank the case which is what should have happened two months ago....

This is true

 

[DGS49]

This case has nothing to do with Presidential immunity, and the Court will not grant certiorari in this instance.

If the case comes up later on substantive grounds, the USSC will toss out the conviction.