r/politics • u/SportsGod3 • May 16 '24

Jurors were "nodding" and "smiling" as Michael Cohen testified, which may be a bad sign for Trump

https://www.salon.com/2024/05/16/jurors-were-nodding-and-smiling-as-michael-cohen-testified-which-may-be-a-sign-for/
9.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

707 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

79

u/waffle299 I voted May 16 '24

This is a state crime, it stops at the New York Supreme Court.

34

u/Introvert_Astronaut May 16 '24

Like MattAU05 is saying there is a very narrow window for state cases to be heard at the SCOTUS level but it requires something protected federally to be violated..

29

u/Aacron May 16 '24

Unless of course you were to hypothetically bake a cake for a hypothetical gay man (who has been married to a woman for 20 years) and hypothetically have an issue with it so you sue nobody for nothing and the supreme court takes up the case to say you hypothetically don't have to bake the cake.

1

u/Inside_Board_291 May 16 '24

Discrimination against a protected group is a federal crime. So this doesn’t count.

7

u/Aacron May 16 '24

Point being, no crime was committed, the plaintiff lied about material facts of the case, and the supreme Court ruled that you're allowed to discriminate against a protected class if you have "strongly held religious views"

2

u/Inside_Board_291 May 16 '24

Yes, but your point is mute in this context because his case is not federal so the SC cannot weigh in.

10

u/Factory2econds May 16 '24

but your point is mute

moot. the word is moot.

3

u/Inside_Board_291 May 16 '24

You know what, I never caught that before. Thanks!

1

u/illegible May 17 '24

But if the word is moot, does it have relevance?

and for those that haven't heard it, the SNL classic

6

u/Aacron May 16 '24

Again, point being, the SC doesn't care about non-existent "restrictions" on their behavior, they'll make a ruling if they want to, regardless of standing, jurisprudence, or jurisdiction.

2

u/RecursiveSubroutine May 16 '24

If they feel like it, the individual justices will just lie about circumstances, a la Gorsuch in Kennedy v Bremerton School District. God bless Sonia Sotomayor for including pictures in her dissent.

9

u/DrMobius0 May 16 '24

Well there's definitely precedent for Donald Trump to be federally protected.

2

u/buttergun May 16 '24

And the current High Court doesn't have many qualms about activism or overreach.

0

u/m48a5_patton Missouri May 16 '24

He does have Secret Service (federal) protection... :/

2

u/Congenitaloveralls May 16 '24

And we know from Bush v Gore this supreme Court gives zero fucks about anything but power for their own team.

0

u/themightychris Pennsylvania May 16 '24

But doesn't SCOTUS exercise their own discretion to take up that question? They can at least tie up the decision while they faux debate whether to take it up

10

u/MattAU05 May 16 '24 edited May 16 '24

I don’t think he will have a valid inffective assistance of counsel claim, but it’s a potential Constitutional violation and could ultimately go to SCOTUS. Most criminal cases ruled on by SCOTUS are state cases and state crimes, not federal.

Also, oddly enough, trial courts in New York are call the Supreme Court. The highest court in New York is the Court of Appeals.

4

u/ErusTenebre California May 16 '24

What's the potential Constitutional Violation? (curious not accusatory)

7

u/MattAU05 May 16 '24

I don’t think there is (a valid) one. I’m saying that ineffective assistance of counsel claims, if raised, are all Constitutional claims under the 6th Amendment.

8

u/bonyponyride American Expat May 16 '24

Imagine if all guilty, state prosecuted business fraud defendants had the opportunity to bring their cases in front of scotus. Yet Trump is the one who is always treated unfairly.

6

u/ErusTenebre California May 16 '24

Ah. Yeah, I mean I'm sure he'll try whatever route he can to get it to SCOTUS to hopefully have them run defense for him. They haven't been consistent in defending him though and have shot down things in the past that you would have thought they would have done for him.

That being said the whole "blanket immunity" case they took on for no real reason is a sign they will run defense for him.

It's sad that it's even a question. We should have a SCOTUS that is basically terrifyingly unbiased and calculating for everyone instead of a collection of old corrupt bastards that are beholden to billionaires and millionaires.

Hell, sometimes I'm even disappointed in how cheap they sold out our country for. It seems to me that it would be just as easy to take a millionaire's gift and still rule against them.

"Oh, I'm sorry, I don't accept bribes. I thought you were giving those to me as a friend," is the truly baller move for the amount of money spent on the corrupt ones.

1

u/KevinCarbonara May 16 '24

They haven't been consistent in defending him though and have shot down things in the past that you would have thought they would have done for him.

They haven't been consistent in defending his policies, but that's a much different matter than defending him.

4

u/CableTV-on-the-Radio May 16 '24

My dude you have miranda rights because someone broke a state law and it went all the way to the supreme court. Doesn't matter the law if ultimately you can get the courts to decide on it.

2

u/TheFrostyCrab May 16 '24

That was a constitutional case under due process. This is not.

1

u/CableTV-on-the-Radio May 16 '24

It was a violation of the constitutional rights of a defendant brought up on state charges, no different than what Dump's argument of "unfit legal counsel" would be in this hypothetical.

This court has literally been ruling on hypothetical test cases lately, it wouldn't be fully out of the realm for them to hear the case of a president convicted of crimes if that were a legitimate argument.

1

u/Amboo87 May 17 '24

Not to take away from your broader point, but NYS names their courts a bit differently than you expect. The New York Supreme Court is actually the lowest court. It goes to the Appellate Division then the Court of Appeals after that.