I guess my point (thanks for putting up with me) is this: Can the 11th circuit and/or SC overrule

[Eliot Rosewater]

or overturn ANY and ALL convictions of trump or anybody else for that matter?

Even though it would be unprecedented, and their legal reasoning would have to be a lie or straight up obstruction etc?

Don't they have that power? Again, I am asking.

Because if the answer is yes, we have to ASSUME it will happen and prepare for it. On the slight chance it doesn't, what is the harm preparing for it?

But how do you prepare for THAT like how do you prepare for judges who will uphold AZ scty of state saying this election and that election is invalid? As this will happen there and elsewhere, we know that.

If the judges are corrupt, there is NOTHING we can do to stop it, legally?

[underpants]

1. SCOTUS only takes up Constitutional issues

Not guilt or innocence as I understand it.
With this court however who they F knows.

[Effete Snob]

2. Well, yes, but the question is...

...can the Supreme Court throw out any conviction.

The answer is, yes they can.

They can decide, if they want, that the "Constitutional issue" is "Can an ex-president be convicted of anything by anyone?" and they can decide that the Constitution does not allow it.

[underpants]

3. Ok. Thanks.

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. Oh then the answer to my question is definitely yes

Oh then the answer to my question is definitely yes


They will simply say his constitutional right to a fair trial or whatever was violated

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. Don't be so sure about that

So far, this SCOTUS has never ruled in Trump’s favor for any case in which he was a named party.

If there’s any political motivation on the part of the court’s conservatives, I think it would be to get Trump out of the way and clear the field for someone else like DeSantis.

With the exception of Clarence, I dont think anyone on the court has any affection, let alone loyalty, to Trump.

[Effete Snob]

8. The question was "can they" not "will they"

Yes, they can do whatever.

[WarGamer]

12. of course they do.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Yes, however 11th is unlikely to get jurisdiction, and SCOTUS...

So far has never ruled in Trump’s favor in a case in which he was a named party.

I think any Indictments from DOJ will be through either the DC office or SDNY, which eliminates the 11th (and even more conservative 5th) circuits.

[Effete Snob]

6. The 11th Circuit? No. The Supreme Court? Sure.

The 11th Circuit only has jurisdiction over matters in Florida, Alabama and Georgia in the first place. They can't do diddly about a criminal conviction in Arizona, for instance.

The Supreme Court? Sure, why not? If they decide that the back of the Constitution says, in invisible ink, that an ex-president can't be convicted of something, then that's the rule.



The Supreme Court decided that fugitive slaves must be returned to their owners. And it was so. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

The Supreme Court decided that segregating black and white people was fine. And it was so. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

The Supreme Court decided that locking up all of the Japanese Americans on the west coast was okay. And it was so. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

The history of the Supreme Court is not some uninterrupted fountain of good judgment.

There's no guarantee they will make decent decisions. It's one of the reasons why voting matters.

You want some crazy shit? The guy who was partly responsible for the program locking up the Japanese is responsible for the decision getting rid of segregating whites and blacks, so it's a mixed bag.

But we've gone through decades of shitty Supreme Court decisions governing various issues. We'll probably do it again.

And, by the way, Ernesto Miranda raped that girl.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

9. There's one little hitch in that ...

Article III, Section 2, in part:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress has the power to constrain the Supreme Court without bothering to impeach a Justice.

[Effete Snob]

10. yeah... ummm... about that...

Guess who gets to decide if Congress has properly exercised that power.

Aside from which, there is utterly nothing currently restraining the Supreme Court's ability to throw out a conviction.

Pointing to a hypothetical which itself comes with a built-in problem doesn't change that.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

14. Yet you pointed out above, the question is what "can" not what "will".

There's nothing hypothetical about the U.S. Constitution.

'Tis writ in the native tongue and 'tis the supreme law of the land.

[Effete Snob]

15. Obviously, I meant under the current circumstances

Unless you foresee a Democratic Senate and President Biden somehow enacting a blanket ban on the Supreme Court basically determining the constitutionality of criminal convictions sometime soon.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

17. Goal post movement noted.

[Effete Snob]

19. Lol

The question is "can they throw out any criminal conviction".

The answer is "they can".

There is nothing to stop them in existence.

It's the same answer to the question asked. No goal post movement needed.

"Oh, Oh, but what if a big meteor wipes out the earth?"

They would most likely find, even in some alternate future irrelevant to the question "can they" that a blanket attempt to remove them from reviewing Constitutional violations is, itself, not Constitutional. Which, you seem not to grasp, removes the disability you are proposing, because they can still overturn attempts to limit their power.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

20. No, you went from what can be done to what you believe are practical limitations.

No, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over criminal convictions, now.

Yes, Congress has the power to declare exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction as to law and fact.

If, in your hypothetical situation, the Supreme Court declared it is not Constitutional for Congress to exercise its Constitutional power to declare such exceptions, then it would be up to Congress to impeach a few Justices and try again.

This is not hypothetical and meteors have no bearing on it, barring catastrophic extinction events resulting therefrom.

[Effete Snob]

24. If I ask you "can you stand on one leg?"

And you say “yes”.

Then I say “but what if I cut your leg off?”

I have not invalidated the answer.

There is nothing, nada, not a thing, which stops the SC from throwing out a criminal conviction.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

27. This game is interfering with the important job of washing socks.

[brooklynite]

11. The Court cannot overrule a conviction...

...absent a claim of improper court procedure, or a claim that the underlying law is unconstitutional.

And before you tell me that this Court can do whatever it wants, let me observe that they have not been 'pro Trump" on any prior case.

[WarGamer]

13. It happens... see US v Arthur Andersen where the SCOTUS 9-0 kicked Andrew Weissman in the teeth.

[Effete Snob]

16. Ineffective assistance of counsel is always a good one

If you are guilty, hire a clown lawyer.

[LeftInTX]

28. They can and will...

Based on the case, if they feel the defendants rights were violated or if there is not a precedent for a case. (As in convicting a former POTUS)
They even can overturn a state's case if the defendant's rights were violated.

Although this case did not go to the Supreme Court, it was overturned in federal court.

She was convicted of murder by the State of AZ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Milke

[mcar]

18. Appeals panel says judge erred in blocking DOJ probe of Mar-a-Lago documents

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/21/donald-trump-special-master-00058176

[Hermit-The-Prog]

23. Thanks for that link!

[LeftInTX]

21. Yes, they can

They can also take up any appeals from Trump along the way
The Supreme Court often takes up criminal appeals if the appeals meet their criteria. (For instance, they will not take up routine criminal appeals because those are decided at the district and appeals level) However, if there is lack of precedence or they want to set a new precedence, they will take up a criminal appeal.

I am more concerned about motions Trump will make along the way.


Today's decision can be appealed by Trump.
I do not know which court it would go to on appeal.
Full appeals court?
DC appeals court?
or USSC?

[Eliot Rosewater]

22. So whether trump goes to jail or red states certify election they lose, sounds like it is up to a SC

that may or may not ignore the law and do the bidding of the traitor and the GOP.

It is pointed out that up until now they have not supported the traitor, lets hope that continues.

[LeftInTX]

25. The supreme court is weird. They often look at things from a technicality standpoint

The one thing we have on our side, is that Trump has shitty lawyers who probably do not write the best......
They usually don't take cases with bad grammar or cases that are not worded well etc...

Now if Trump gets a dream team and gets his act together, they may take up his case....

[jcgoldie]

26. They shot down the election deniers the last time around

Outside of ridiculous Clarence Thomas.

[Kaleva]

29. How are you preparing for it?