Trump Demands His Verdict Go Straight To Supreme Court For Review

 On Sunday night, former President Donald Trump, who a New York jury found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in a trial that was seen by many as an American legal travesty, demanded that the Supreme Court review the conviction.

Author and TV host Mark Levin broached the idea of going straight to America’s highest court almost immediately after the verdict was announced on Thursday. Judge Juan Merchan said Trump would be sentenced four days before the Republican National Convention, which is set to begin on July 15.

Trump wrote on Truth Social Sunday night: “The ‘Sentencing’ for not having done anything wrong will be, conveniently for the Fascists, 4 days before the Republican National Convention. A Radical Left Soros backed D.A., who ran on a platform of ‘I will get Trump,’ reporting to an ‘Acting’ Local Judge, appointed by the Democrats, who is HIGHLY CONFLICTED, will make a decision which will determine the future of our Nation? The United States Supreme Court MUST DECIDE!”

 

On Thursday, Levin wrote on X:

The issue is how to get out of the New York system and bring the case to the Supreme Court, which may or may not take it up. That is why I look to Bush v Gore, where the S Ct decided to step in BECAUSE it was a presidential election. There was another court involved, the Florida Supreme Court. And it was that court that the Supreme Court believed was violating the Equal Protection Clause. That was the doctrine it settled on, given the unequal treatment of voters.

In New York, you would file the notice of appeal, ask for a stay of the trial court, and seek expedited review. You need to protect your ability to timely appeal and not abandon it. You might then file applications for common law writs with the US Supreme Court, where the S Ct can take action if it chooses, and legitimately claim the harm is immediate and ongoing not just to a presidential candidate, but to the federal electoral system, federal campaign jurisdiction (reverse federalism), and the precedent that might otherwise be set and spread throughout the country.

The denial of due process infected every aspect of the case. The S Ct has common law powers (common law writs — judicially created not statutorily created) it uses very sparingly, in extraordinary circumstances, to grant relief. Waiting would compound the problem.

We need to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to intervene. If it chooses not to, then it won’t. But between Jack Smith criminalizing election challenges to the point that we do not know what is or is not legal, and now Bragg and Merchan criminalizing events and activities that are not illegal, to the point we don’t now know what they are, the Supreme Court, in my view, must do something. In the end, the S Ct will not be able to avoid this forever. Better to deal with now than later, when it will get worse.