this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
631 points (99.1% liked)

News

23424 readers
4979 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 79 points 7 months ago (5 children)

so he actually has to pony up the full amount now? no more bond, just pay it?

[–] Telodzrum 56 points 7 months ago (4 children)

He can appeal this to the Circuit and then that to SCOTUS. So, closer to exhausting all appeals, but not there yet.

[–] NOT_RICK 57 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don’t see how SCOTUS would ever agree to take this case, either. That said, I won’t put it past them

[–] Telodzrum 38 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They won't, that's just the hierarchy of the appellate process.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 14 points 7 months ago (3 children)

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?

[–] Telodzrum 16 points 7 months ago

Anyone can appeal for cert. Famously, a lot of convicts do from prison. It’s very rare to have it granted, though.

[–] stoly 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] pdxfed 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] stoly 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I have no faith in them. Ignoring them doesn’t fix things and pointing out how the world works does not imply faith.

[–] Hugin 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 4 points 7 months ago

And if it's Trump asking?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

could the circuit court refuse considering the egregious nature of its current disposition?

[–] Telodzrum 20 points 7 months ago

Yup, that's the most likely thing to happen. This court did it.

[–] stoly 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] stoly 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] stoly -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And I also gave examples. I'm not really sure what you're going on about. Just walk away.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's a New York state civil case. SCOTUS would be going way out of their way to get involved in this one.

[–] ccunning 28 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Isn’t this just in regards to the first defamation trial; not the second, $400+ million one?

[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago (2 children)

yep.

hes about to lose that 400m bond fight also, so say bye-bye to that new york property

that said, its just money. there are enough morons in the country for him to grift his way back into the black. doesnt matter how much he loses.

its just so satisfying to see this criminal finally fucking lose something

[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm okay with him bankrupting his supporters too

[–] stoly 15 points 7 months ago

Yep. Take down the entire party apparatus while you’re at it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Didn't he just get a 1B stock payout from Truth Social?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

i think its stock only, there are a ton of restrictions like he cant sell immediately.. so maybe no immediate cash out and hopefully in the meantime the price tanks to pennies so it becomes worthless

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

And then only if he can find enough suckers to buy it off him. Just him dumping it would tank the stock price.

[–] stoly 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No. He doesn’t actually have that value because he can’t touch it for an extended period of time. It’ll bottom out before he can sell.

[–] Windex007 5 points 7 months ago

And even when that happens, he won't be able to liquidate that much stock at market price.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

The $400m was for tax fraud and deceiving banks.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

This is the 2nd defamation trial (the first being 5 million iirc). The 400+ million one was the NY fraud trial for inflating the value of his properties. It is hard to keep track of them :)

[–] dhork 28 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I expect he can still appeal. He is the most unappealing person ever, yet always has another appeal....

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

If he makes any more motions he might actually lose some weight.

[–] Theprogressivist 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I believe the appeal needs to be denied by the second circuit, and then he will have to pony up the cash.

[–] partial_accumen 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

and then he will have to pony up the cash.

...or E Jean Caroll will be paid by the Chubb Group who issued the bond.

[–] chiliedogg 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Bonds aren't insurance policies. They're guarantees that the full amount will be paid to those owed the money. In the end, Trump will still have to pay if he loses the appeal. If Chubb has to pay instead, they can start seizing and selling Trump assets to cover the full value of the bond.

[–] partial_accumen 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yep, we agree. Chubb only pays if Trump doesn't.

[–] chiliedogg 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Trump's gonna pay. It's just a question of whether he'll pay directly or try to stall again and end up having one of his building seized by Chubb.

I know which one I'm rooting for.

[–] partial_accumen 1 points 7 months ago

Sadly Chubbs bond was backed by a Schwab account of assets as collateral. So stocks and bonds, not real estate. Chubb shot down accepting any Trump real estate as collateral.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

He already had to post a bond for this appeal— so he ponied up the cash. Carroll just doesn’t get it until all appeals are exhausted.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

he ponied up the cash.

No he didn't, Chubb provided a bond.

Now he has to pony up the cash and if he doesn't Chubb will have to pay.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hey!
Donald!
Donald give up your money.