Why Donald Trump's appeal must go to the Supreme Court

Donald Trump's appeal of the sham verdict must go to the Supreme Court. I've heard the arguments why this appeal aren't likely to be successful. That's irrelevant. Before submitting the appeal, I'd mount a PR campaign that pressures the justices into hearing the case this summer. The first argument would be that this isn't just any civil rights case. This is the lawsuit that's aimed at elininating the verdict of a trial meant to interfere with this year's presidential election.

First, this verdict must be overturned because, otherwise, municipal courts would be given the authority to determine presidential elections. Presidential elections should be determined by voters, not crooked judges and partisan DAs.

Next, if President Trump's appeal follows the traditional path, the damage would be done by the time it reaches SCOTUS. That isn't acceptable. Period. By then, Joe Biden's second term might already have started. Team Biden's' strategy would already have worked. Team Biden knows it can't defeat Trump in a fair fight. That's why they told Alvin Bragg to resurrect these dead misdemeanors.

Third, imagine 3,500 district attorneys having the authority to play partisan tricks with presidential elections. I'm certain that Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton didn't intend on giving them that type of authority when they wrote the Constitution. I'm certain of that because the Preamble to the Constitution starts this way:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We the People determine our fate, not partisan judges and DAs. Period. When Judge Mershan ruled that Brad Smith, the former Chair of the FEC, could testify in a narrow way, Mershan admitted that Smith's testimony was important to the defense's case. That admission is proof that this trial didn't belong in a Manhatan municipal court. Since it didn't belong in a municipal court, it shouldn't be resolved by anyone other than a federal court. Alan Dershowitz has a different idea for the appeal but it's still worthwhile pondering:

This interview is quite insightful, too:

Chief Justice Roberts hates for SCOTUS to get involved in partisan issues. This is different, though, because Democrats dragged SCOTUS into this appeal. Chief Justice Roberts shouldn't mistake judicial modesty with judicial cowardice. Extraordinary situations require extraordinary solutions. Period.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

Blistering Barack's butt (bigtime)

Image
This past weekend, Barack Obama tried spreading the blame around for Hamas's murderous rampage of Oct. 7. This blistering op-ed hints that Mr. Obama isn't the effective communicator that he once was. Obama initially insisted that "nobody's hands are clean" from the Oct. 7 Massacre. Liel Leibovitz, the Editor at large of Tablet Magazine wrote this op-ed questioning Obama's intellectual honesty. After Obama said that nobody's hands are clean, Mr. Liebovitz wrote wrote "Nah, man. Not all of us are complicit. It's just you. It's you, because you're the one who gave that stentorian speech about red lines in Syria and then sat by and did nothing as those red lines were crossed and Assad continued to slaughter his own people, allowing the Iranians and the Russians to creep in and fill the vacuum left by your devastating lack of leadership." In short, Mr. Liebovitz isn't buying what Mr. Obama is peddling. Let's question Mr. Obama a
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more