debut: 11/9/18
7,324 runs
The Supreme Court denied his request.
Roberts and Barrett voted with the two Liberal Justices
Roberts and Barrett voted with the two Liberal Justices
Forums:
The Rum Shop
The Back Room
It's Official: Trump is a convicted FELON
debut: 2/16/17
38,300 runs
Donald Trump can be sentenced Friday in hush money case, Supreme Court says in 5-4 ruling
President-elect Donald Trump can be sentenced Friday in his New York hush money case, the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 ruling.
The high court on Thursday rejected Trump’s emergency request to delay the proceeding, setting the stage for him to be sentenced just days before he is inaugurated on January 20 for a second term.
Four conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – said they would have granted Trump’s request. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals to side against Trump.
Judge Juan Merchan, the New York judge who oversaw Trump’s trial, had ordered sentencing in the case for Friday morning but has signaled that Trump will face neither penalties nor prison time.
The sentencing hearing is scheduled for Friday at 9:30 a.m.
President-elect Donald Trump can be sentenced Friday in his New York hush money case, the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 ruling.
The high court on Thursday rejected Trump’s emergency request to delay the proceeding, setting the stage for him to be sentenced just days before he is inaugurated on January 20 for a second term.
Four conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – said they would have granted Trump’s request. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals to side against Trump.
Judge Juan Merchan, the New York judge who oversaw Trump’s trial, had ordered sentencing in the case for Friday morning but has signaled that Trump will face neither penalties nor prison time.
The sentencing hearing is scheduled for Friday at 9:30 a.m.
debut: 2/16/17
38,300 runs
......
Judge Juan Merchan, in his remarks, will destroy Donald in words that will resonate for years.
Donald, don't piss a judge off...
Judge Juan Merchan, in his remarks, will destroy Donald in words that will resonate for years.
Donald, don't piss a judge off...
debut: 3/24/04
38,300 runs
In reply to camos
Just learned that today. Until you are sentenced, you don’t have to check the box “Yes” on application that ask – have you ever been convicted of a crime? --- interesting, isent it?
Just learned that today. Until you are sentenced, you don’t have to check the box “Yes” on application that ask – have you ever been convicted of a crime? --- interesting, isent it?
debut: 11/9/18
7,324 runs
We might just turn him back if he ever crosses a Canadian border.
We will call that Judiciary Force.
We will call that Judiciary Force.
debut: 7/20/14
16,371 runs
Oh skites! Wow! A misdemeanor that was made into a mountain! Steups & gwallang!
debut: 5/29/07
8,294 runs
There should have been a penalty in that sentence, maybe a $1ooo fine, they would have done that to a lesser person.
debut: 2/16/17
38,300 runs
In reply to BeatDball
Oh Really ...
My response shows that I am expressing frustration and skepticism about the U.S. legal system, particularly regarding perceptions of bias, accountability, and the influence of wealth and power on judicial outcomes. These are complex and deeply debated issues, and my concerns align with ongoing conversations about the integrity and impartiality of legal institutions in the United States and beyond.
The question of judicial credibility is one that has long been at the heart of public discourse. In the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, critics often question whether justices can truly set aside political biases, given that they are nominated by presidents from specific political parties. This has led to a broader critique that judicial decisions may sometimes reflect ideological leanings rather than strict interpretations of the law. The perception of partisanship within the judiciary, whether real or imagined, has eroded trust in the system.
The mention of wealth and influence in legal proceedings touches on another significant concern: the disparity in access to justice. Many contend that wealthier people can hire elite legal teams because they can afford to do so, which could tip the scales in their favour. This imbalance can foster cynicism about the fairness of trials and the ability of the legal system to hold powerful individuals accountable.
The comparison between the U.S. and Canada highlights an interesting point about how different legal systems handle courtroom behaviour and accountability. While the U.S. emphasizes free speech and procedural protections, critics sometimes argue that this can allow for courtroom antics or delays that might not be tolerated elsewhere. In Canada, for example, stricter decorum in courtrooms might lead to swifter consequences for certain behaviours. Trump would be serving time in jail months ago.
As for this specific Trump case I am referencing, it underscores the intersection of law, politics, and public opinion. When high-profile figures are involved, trials can become as much about media narratives and public perception as they are about the legal proceedings themselves.Judge Juan Merchan, wilted and looks idiotic.
How can a future felon before this Judge have so many contempts and be classified in total as a misdemeanour?
Ultimately, my critique shines a light on broader systemic issues: the balance of fairness and accountability, the influence of politics and wealth, and the role of public trust in maintaining a functioning judiciary. These are vital topics for ongoing dialogue and reform.
My understanding now is that the lady is not blind anymore in America.
Sarge
Oh Really ...
My response shows that I am expressing frustration and skepticism about the U.S. legal system, particularly regarding perceptions of bias, accountability, and the influence of wealth and power on judicial outcomes. These are complex and deeply debated issues, and my concerns align with ongoing conversations about the integrity and impartiality of legal institutions in the United States and beyond.
The question of judicial credibility is one that has long been at the heart of public discourse. In the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, critics often question whether justices can truly set aside political biases, given that they are nominated by presidents from specific political parties. This has led to a broader critique that judicial decisions may sometimes reflect ideological leanings rather than strict interpretations of the law. The perception of partisanship within the judiciary, whether real or imagined, has eroded trust in the system.
The mention of wealth and influence in legal proceedings touches on another significant concern: the disparity in access to justice. Many contend that wealthier people can hire elite legal teams because they can afford to do so, which could tip the scales in their favour. This imbalance can foster cynicism about the fairness of trials and the ability of the legal system to hold powerful individuals accountable.
The comparison between the U.S. and Canada highlights an interesting point about how different legal systems handle courtroom behaviour and accountability. While the U.S. emphasizes free speech and procedural protections, critics sometimes argue that this can allow for courtroom antics or delays that might not be tolerated elsewhere. In Canada, for example, stricter decorum in courtrooms might lead to swifter consequences for certain behaviours. Trump would be serving time in jail months ago.
As for this specific Trump case I am referencing, it underscores the intersection of law, politics, and public opinion. When high-profile figures are involved, trials can become as much about media narratives and public perception as they are about the legal proceedings themselves.Judge Juan Merchan, wilted and looks idiotic.
How can a future felon before this Judge have so many contempts and be classified in total as a misdemeanour?
Ultimately, my critique shines a light on broader systemic issues: the balance of fairness and accountability, the influence of politics and wealth, and the role of public trust in maintaining a functioning judiciary. These are vital topics for ongoing dialogue and reform.
My understanding now is that the lady is not blind anymore in America.
Sarge
- edited -
Forums:
The Rum Shop
The Back Room
Search
Live Scores
- no matches