-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So far, at least nine (now ~40) (now >70) judges, including Trump appointees, have called a halt to Trump executive actions
- Thread starter essentialsaltes
- Start date
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 22,581
- 15,244
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
We're not all talking about having exactly the same rights. But everyone gets due process. Which is what the courts are upholding.
From the government site: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-3/ALDE_00013726/
'Despite the government’s broad power over immigration, the Supreme Court has recognized that aliens who have physically entered the United States generally come under the protective scope of the Due Process Clause, which applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.
These due process protections generally include the right to a hearing and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before deprivation of a liberty interest'
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 22,581
- 15,244
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Which is why the judges are obliged to uphold the constitution. See the post above.
Which has zero effect on the separation of powers. Do you really not understand any of this?
Upvote
0
Valletta
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2020
- 11,605
- 5,448
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
"However one feels about Trump, he has the same right to due process and an impartial jury as the rest of us. And he was denied that right by instructions that falsely advised his jury that it had no discretion to acquit him for reasons other than a failure of proof."
Why Is Judge Juan Merchan Refusing to Honor Trump’s Due-Process Rights? | National Review
The principal duty of judges in the United States is to protect Americans from government overreach. Judge Merchan is doing the opposite.
www.nationalreview.com
A jumble of legal theories failed to give Trump 'fair notice' of the New York charges against him
When a New York jury convicted Donald Trump of 34 felonies last week, it was relying on a chain of legal reasoning that involved various possible
reason.com
Trump v. Merchan — Testing the limits of judicial contempt in criminal cases: 12 questions . . . and a just-released appellate ruling — First Amendment News 423
Former President Donald Trump's comments about Judge Juan Merchan in the current hush money case raise a basic question: What are the outer limits of contempt regarding a defendant in a criminal case?
Trump’s Trial Violated Due Process
He was denied notice of the charges, meaningful opportunity to respond, and proof of all elements.
Legal Errors in the New York Prosecution of President Trump
Due Process
There is no evidence Trump intended to violate the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), either in 2016 or 2017, which supports the enhancement of Penal Law § 175.05 to felonious Penal Law § 175.10. Because that flawed indictment is the basis
for his current convictions, his conviction should be reversed.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2011
- 40,826
- 43,883
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
"of the past"? What about last week?
(Not to mention the references to its own rulings of the past that it has "long held".)
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2011
- 40,826
- 43,883
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
I mean, it's pretty obvious, but...
Trump administration violated order by sending immigrants on flight to Africa, U.S. judge says
The Trump administration violated a federal court order against deporting immigrants to countries where they have no ties without giving them a chance to contest their removal, a federal judge in Boston said Wednesday.U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Massachusetts said that migrants from Myanmar, Vietnam, Cuba, South Sudan and Mexico did not have a “meaningful opportunity to object to transfer” to the African nation, where only one had connections, in defiance of a court order last month. The judge said he would determine later what, if any, the punishment might be for the administration.
During a news conference Wednesday, Department of Homeland Security officials said South Sudan was not the “final destination” for the eight immigrants removed from the U.S. a day earlier, despite attorneys’ declarations and a “Removal Order” naming the country as the end point.
Upvote
0
It's hard to take many of your claims seriously.
Report: 50 Venezuelans sent to Salvadoran prison entered the U.S. legally, contrary to White House claims
The Trump administration insists that the Venezuelan men it sent to a notoriously brutal prison in El Salvador were all "illegal aliens" connected to a
reason.com
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2011
- 40,826
- 43,883
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
Judge blocks Trump bid to dismantle Department of Education
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
One nation indivisible
- Mar 11, 2017
- 20,745
- 15,700
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
As does the DHS. The president is not a king.
That's not relevant. I don't know the details of the case that resulted in the court order, but the DHS was under order that limited the countries they could be deported to and the right to challenge a destination to offer a claim of realistic fear of government action in the selected destination. The pre-existing order does not prevent deportation or even ensure the aren't deported to a country where they claim fear of going. It only guarantees the opportunity to make their claim in court. (That's due process for the 100th time.)
I'm not interested in your politically motivated fever dreams.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
One nation indivisible
- Mar 11, 2017
- 20,745
- 15,700
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
My word. And seriously, to complain that a jury was told they were to decide the case on facts rather than other factors, SMH Juries are determiners of facts, judges handle the legal issues. Though I suspect it is not legal issues that the judge is referring to in the 3rd hand instructions, but rather to fame and politics, neither of which should determine his guilt.
Upvote
0
Perpetual Student
Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time
- Jan 28, 2025
- 137
- 117
- 54
- Country
- Belgium
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
Having passed some time in a law school, I expect the average judge to be aware of that. More than the not-law schooled citizen.
Within the bounderies of your Constitution. As he took an oath to protect and respect.
These "thousands wannabee dictators" have taken a similar oath, and respect their oath better than the current president.
Correct. Luckily the courts still hold this lawless administration on a leash.
News flash: it's Trump now.
What the opponents of the current practice want has been repeated so many times that the statement above can not be labelled as a lie. A willful and knowing attempt to tell and spread non truths.
The opponents of current practice want a fair and just trial for criminals. Nothing more nothing less. Just like Donald Trump got.
Upvote
0
Valletta
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2020
- 11,605
- 5,448
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
If you understand law and justice you know the twisting and turning of laws in order to "get Trump," ignoring statutes of limitations and making up charges, was a Soviet-style mockery of justice. Progressive judges think they should set policy rather than the people. It is an attack on our Republic and will not be accepted.
Upvote
0
Perpetual Student
Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time
- Jan 28, 2025
- 137
- 117
- 54
- Country
- Belgium
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
There was no "twisting and turning of laws in order to "get Trump," ignoring statutes of limitations and making up charges, was a Soviet-style mockery".
Do you see this picture?
In the middle you see Mr. Trump having his trial, being able to defend himself, the same thing that "the Left" asks for Mr. Garcia and other defendants.
And do you see these two gentlemen flanking Mr. Trump? These are his lawyers. They are hired and payed by Mr. Trump because they know the laws and legal procedures very well. They have been studying the file against Mr. Trump in detail and followed all the legal procedures that lead to his 34 convictions. Yet they didn't saw any mockery, Soviet style or other style.
If they had seen any irregularity they would have raised an objection. I severely doubt that you, having no access to the file and not having been present at the procedures could find any irregularity when the two lawyers of Mr. Trump failed to do so.
kind regards,
Perpetual Student.
Upvote
0
Valletta
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2020
- 11,605
- 5,448
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
No change of venue, no jury of his peers, no due process, a gag order while a defendant while he was being publicly attacked, interference in a presidential election, applying the law as it had never been applied to as an individual. The people saw and decided to vote Trump in as president.
Upvote
0
Perpetual Student
Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time
- Jan 28, 2025
- 137
- 117
- 54
- Country
- Belgium
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
There was a jury of his peers, the citizens of New York.
I just posted a picture of the process.
A gag order against his relentless attacks of the judge. And the gag order was barely enforced.
Nope.
This is irrelevant for the matter. He had his due process, as every defendant should have.
kind regards,
Perpetual Student
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
One nation indivisible
- Mar 11, 2017
- 20,745
- 15,700
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Changes of venue are typically for when a defendant is notorious in a particular locality for committing the crime. It is done some local passions inflamed by the crime do not interfere with justice and due process. Trump's crime was a fairly common business fraud crime. He's been well known in NY County for 40 years, long before he ever committed the crime. His notoriety has nothing to do with the crime or the locality. Moving the trial wouldn't find a jury less aware of Trump's notoriety. There was no risk that victims, witnesses, or people with close relationships to both would saturate the jury pool.
The only thing that was at issue was that a lot of people had emotional commitments for and against him in general and finding a jury that was made of the people the legal teams and the judge thought could set aside their feelings about the defendant and weren't overly knowledgeable about the case. That is all.
It is also why that instruction was given about not acquitting if the jury found the prosecution had proven all of the elements of the crime. Generally speaking, specific criminal charges have specific "elements" that are necessary to prove that particular crime was committed each of which must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". For example in "Premeditated Intentional Homicide" those likely include (A) the defendant's actions caused the death, (B) the defendant intended to cause the death, and (C) the defendant planned those actions. If (A) and (B) are proven beyond reasonable doubt, but (C) is not then the whole charge is "not guilty". (Though (A)+(B) is also likely another form of criminal homicide which may or may not be charged.) The jury instructions will tell the jury that *EACH* element must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, if not the defendant must be found "not guilty", but likewise if they find that the defendant has committed all of the elements of the crime, they *must* find him "guilty". This breaks down the decision making and allows them to pair the evidence and testimony with the elements of the crime.
Upvote
0
A2SG
Gumby
- Jun 17, 2008
- 9,446
- 3,604
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
If I understand this objection correctly, the objection is that the jury was not specifically informed that jury nullification was an option. For those who may not know, jury nullification is when the facts support a guilty verdict, but the jury decides to render a not guilty verdict anyway. In other words, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was established, but forget all that, let's say not guilty anyway.
Now, while there is no legal precedent to disallow jury nullification as a possible outcome, judges are not obligated to instruct jurors that it is a valid option. In the Fourth Circuit district cast, US v. Moylan, Judge Sobeloff wrote:
We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
...However, this is not to say that the jury should be encouraged in their "lawlessness", and by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.
This was also affirmed by the SCOTUS in Sparf v US.
In other words, the jury is allowed to acquit despite guilty being established beyond a reasonable doubt, but judges, or defense attorneys, are not obligated to inform them of this. So Trump's due process was not violated by the judge in this case. I'll grant you, I'm no lawyer, but my research does bear out my view on the matter, and I'd be very surprised if the appeals court sees it differently, given the precedents I've cited. But, I suppose we'll see.
But....putting all of this aside, since he was found guilty, but sentenced to an unconditional discharge, it could be said he got the same result: no punishment or fines imposed whatsoever. Certainly, having a guilty verdict on his record can't be said to have hurt his political chances any, so I'm at a loss to see what damages Trump can assert a guilty verdict has inflicted upon him that an appeals court would need to address.
As to the rest, I'll look into the issues as time permits, and see if they have any merit. Granted, I'm not a lawyer or a judge, so the ultimate decision will be made by the appeals court in these cases, but I will see what I can figure out. I have done some previous research into jury nullification though, so I was aware of those issues, which is why I was able to respond to that one.
-- A2SG, aren't you lucky....
Upvote
0
Similar threads
