Printable View
And now House Speaker Mikey Johnson claims to have been speaking to federal Supreme Court justices about their dear leader’s felony conviction problem. Apparently the Republican Party has also abandoned the concept of separation of powers and federalism both at once? Un-freaking- believable.
I've seen several sources report that Speaker Johnson stated the Supreme Court should look into the appeal process on this case but I cannot find any suggestion that he has been speaking to justices. Exactly who do you claim he's been in contact with?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Johnson didnt name names, but he told Fox he knows several justices personally and thinks they will want to "look into this." Regardless, I knew Trump would appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, as he always does as long as others foot the bill. But I don't think the Supreme Court could or would do anything at this point; appeals have to go thru the system to the next court up, and appeals have to have some actual legal grounds.
"I think that the justices on the court,I know many of them personally,I think they're deeply concerned about that as we are. So I think they'll set this straight"
Maybe he’s just speculating. Or maybe he already had conversations previously along the lines of ‘what if he’s convicted?’ Either way, he shouldn’t be talking to them about matters that may come before the court.
I’m still learning about such things, but am I correct in thinking since this was a state jury trial an appeal can only go as high as the highest state court. I suppose a charge could be filed against ny state in a federal court that could eventually become a Supreme Court case, but it would have to first go through the lower courts. Johnston obviously knows more than me, but I think it’s just bluster. Whatever it is I only picture it as a long torturous path to his pals in the Supreme Court?
My spicy chickpea stew went over well, I had the chance to speak to people I hadn't in some time, and of course I was (and still am) very much pleased with the outcome of the trial. I'm thinking something more formal when I have time (good luck with that) is in order. It's just been such a happy and historic event. Rob
From what I’ve read on the topic it would be a tough thing to get the federal courts involved. Trump’s lawyers would have to make a convincing argument that somehow his federal constitutional rights were harmed by this. And then yeah, it wouldn’t go straight to the supremes, it’d start at the bottom and take well beyond the election to get to his supporters at the fancy building on the east end of the DC mall. Johnson is probably bluster at this point. The Maga base demands it and he’s on thin ice already since he acted all RINO by working with the democrats on Ukraine aid and such recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I don’t think it’s “acceptable “so much as a yawn issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I guess it isn't so much about "Sleepy Joe" as it is "Sleepy Iris".Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
But whatever, at least I'm not the one who doesn't care that their political party is about to nominate a convicted felon for president. The idea that one of our political parties thinks that a convicted felon would be a perfectly acceptable person to be in charge of upholding the laws of the United States would be laughable if it weren't incredibly tragic.
I'm very concerned that this person will be getting access to classified documents, when he has disregarded the safety measures in place to keep them classified.