• Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    22 hours ago

    trump desperately trying to distract the media from reporting about her, and todd blanches involvement with epstein.

    • Ex Nummis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      2 days ago

      The point is simply to inconvenience her as much as possible. Even when he knows the arguments won’t hold up in court, it still means she has to expend more time/effort/money to follow up. And he has unlimited funds to inconvenience her.

      • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 day ago

        This doesn’t inconvenience her at all though. The case is done and settled. This is just him requesting appeal from the Supreme Court and them saying no again. She doesn’t have to do anything about it. There’s no effort on her part.

        • Triumph@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’m not perfectly familiar with the process. SCOTUS is an appeals court; does her side not have to go argue? Or is it just the appellant asking the court and the court reviewing previous case documentation and the law? (Yeah, lol, “law”, but I mean ideally.)

          • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 day ago

            Her side doesn’t have to do anything unless SCOTUS grants the appeal. Which they have repeatedly said they will not. If they granted the appeal and agreed to hear it, yes her side would have to go argue.

            At this point it is just wasting the Justices’ and their clerks’ time to do the paperwork saying they won’t hear the appeal.

          • mercano@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            The Supreme Court doesn’t hear every case. Appellants petition the Court to be heard, but four out of nine Justices have to vote to hear the case before it can go anywhere. This case didn’t clear the first hurdle.

      • MehBlah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        Oh no the orange tumor fears having to pay for his crimes and by pay I mean money not really pay.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      i believe the 5mil is in escrow, something to do with upfront paying when hes appealing. he still has the 86mil unpaid.

  • PointlessLifePersonified@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 days ago

    He’ll just keep stomping his feet like a whiney toddler, hoping to wear them down until he gets his way. Can’t believe we’re not even halfway through his term yet.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I read in one of the articles on this, there are no more avenues to reverse this now. Its final.

      There’s still other things like the 80mil damages case, but this one is now done.

  • arotrios@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Fucking dismiss it with prejudice already.

    Edit: the appeal, not the judgement against Trump

    • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      You don’t know what you’re talking about…

      The case is settled and he lost it. There’s nothing to dismiss.

      This is him appealing the lower court decision, and the Supreme Court saying they will not grant his appeal. They still have to say no whenever he requests appeal on it.

      • arotrios@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yep, got my terminology a bit mixed up, but basically my message is that the Supreme Court needs to tell him to STFU or else we’re going to be seeing this headline every week till he dies, because he will never stop.

        Plus:

        In federal courts, an appeal is generally a right and can only be taken from final results, allowing typically one appeal. If the appellate court finds no prejudicial errors, they will affirm the original conviction and sentence. Missing filing deadlines can lead to appeal dismissal, leaving the original decision unchanged; failure to comply with briefing schedules can also result in dismissal for lack of prosecution. If a bond principal loses on appeal, they may require a court order for exoneration of the bond.

        https://rochybylawoffice.com/how-many-times-can-you-appeal-a-federal-case.html


        So I’m unclear why we’re on round two of this bullshit. Is there a reason why we’re seeing the Court allow multiple appeals on a final judgement? Is it because its a civil case subject to different rules, or just because he’s president?

        • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          They’re not allowing appeal. That’s exactly what they’re saying. There hasn’t been an appeal at SCOTUS yet because when he requested one before, they said no they will not hear it. They denied his writ of certiorari. Once that happens, you generally get one single petition for them to reconsider it, filed within 25 days of the initial denial of writ, and the reconsideration is virtually never granted. That’s what this is. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_44

          They denied his writ of certiorari the first time. This was his one petition to have them reconsider that, which they also denied. He will likely keep trying to file, because he is a manchild, but it won’t even make it passed the law clerks because he’s used his petitions. It’ll just get auto-denied.

          This happens thousands of times per year. The Court denies certiorari for some 7000-8000 cases per year. We don’t get headlines for them because it’s extremely routine. We’re only getting this one because it’s the President and he gets clicks.

          • nfh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            If he keeps filing, is there a point where the court starts to discipline his attorney for wasting court time?

            Like I assume practically speaking subsequent filings would make clerks waste their time, and probably at least speak to a justice given the sitting POTUS is involved. But at some point it seems like the lawyer submitting any subsequent appeal is just asking for a SCOTUS justice to write the bar association a negative recommendation about their conduct.

            • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              That, I’m not entirely sure. The Supreme Court has its own bar association that an attorney must be a member of in order to file cases with the Supreme Court or argue cases in the Court. I don’t think there have been many attorneys try to get themselves disbarred from SCOTUS.

            • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              Yeah the AP is really good at getting breaking news out, with just the bare minimum factual information. They don’t go into any detail or editorialization.

              Like, they also mention the other case, where the $83M verdict was awarded, but don’t go into any editorial opinion on it. Just that SCOTUS hasn’t acted on that appeal yet.

              So we are going to hear more headlines when they do review that petition here in a couple of months and probably be back where we are today with “Didn’t they just deny that a few weeks ago?”. When in reality it’s two different cases.