630
Judge upholds $83m E Jean Carroll defamation verdict against Trump
(www.theguardian.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 25 Apr 2024
630 points (99.1% liked)
News
23265 readers
3127 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
He can appeal this to the Circuit and then that to SCOTUS. So, closer to exhausting all appeals, but not there yet.
I don’t see how SCOTUS would ever agree to take this case, either. That said, I won’t put it past them
They won't, that's just the hierarchy of the appellate process.
Can you actually appeal anything to the SC with enough $$$ or is there a type of denial earlier in the process that then prohibits it?
Anyone can appeal for cert. Famously, a lot of convicts do from prison. It’s very rare to have it granted, though.
SCOTUS can take any case they want. But they don’t have all that much time so have to pick and choose until juicy ones.
The amount of faith you have in SCOTUS is concerning, they've already clearly demonstrated they're not basing opinions on law but who appointed them.
I have no faith in them. Ignoring them doesn’t fix things and pointing out how the world works does not imply faith.
You can appeal any federal case to scotus or make an argument that a state case should be federal. However scotus decides what cases they hear. So you can appeal but unless you have a good argument they are simply going to decide to not hear the case.
And if it's Trump asking?
could the circuit court refuse considering the egregious nature of its current disposition?
Yup, that's the most likely thing to happen. This court did it.
SCOTUS won’t override a state court on matters of state law. The will always defer to the highest court in each state unless there is a federal question involved.
This is straight up not true.
Here's an example I found after a real quick Google search: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-against-north-carolina-republicans-over-election-law-theory/
The Supremacy Clause gives the US Supreme Court authority to overturn decisions by any lower court, including State Supreme Courts.
The concept of "independent state legislature" doctrine was shot down by SCOTUS back in 2022.
See:
Moore v. Harper
I never said they can't, I said they won't unless there is a Federal question. State supreme courts are experts on their state laws and the SCOTUS will not interpret state laws for states.
I literally just gave you an example though. Federal elections are run by the states. The US Supreme Court ruled against the North Carolina Supreme Court regarding that state's running of elections. They may be federal elections, but it's completely a state issue.
Or we could talk about their history with state gerrymandering cases?
Especially with this current court, it's quite the claim to say with such certainty that they will or will not do something. But, historically speaking, you're wrong.
And I also gave examples. I'm not really sure what you're going on about. Just walk away.
You gave me an example of...? Your claim is that (with a strange amount of certainty) that the US Supreme Court doesn't do X. I gave you evidence that they have and will do X. That's all I needed to do in order to support my claim.
You can't really prove a negative with examples so I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you also gave examples? Examples of what???
Is every SCOTUS case ever (that isn't one I mentioned) an example?
That's a total non sequitur, here. Circuit then SCOTUS is the appellate path, as I said. No one has even discussed the merit or likelihood of success of any such appeals.
The Supreme Court has the right to issue certiorari over any case with a few exceptions where Congress has created specific courts to have original jurisdiction. Bankruptcy court is an example as well as immigration court. The question isn’t whether they can but which cases to prioritize given the amount of time they have available each year.
Even in those types of issues SCOTUS is the court of last resort.
Agreed. I'm just reporting on the principle.
It's a New York state civil case. SCOTUS would be going way out of their way to get involved in this one.
This is specifically an appeal to the federal district. Read the linked article.
Which still doesn't matter, because SCOTUS doesn't get involved in civil cases unless there's some kind of constitutional question, and there is none here.
So, I'm right? Thanks for this exchange; it's been worthless.