Kathianne
05-31-2024, 09:44 AM
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2024/05/31/heres-what-mark-levin-thinks-trump-should-do-next-n2639785
Mark Levin Has Some Legal Advice for Team TrumpKatie Pavlich
Katie Pavlich
|
May 31, 2024 10:00 AM
AP Photo/AJ Mast
After former President Donald Trump was convicted by a judge and jury on 34 felonies Thursday afternoon, which were resurrected from misdemeanors past the statutes of limitations and upgraded as charges by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, constitutional law attorney and conservative radio host Mark Levin has some advice about what to do next.
Levin is urging Trump to get the case out of New York and to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. From a post 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. The problem now is that every day that goes by, the actions by the NY lower court bleeds into the federal, presidential election system.
Where does this end? Will other DA's use the Bragg-Merchan precedent, such as it is, going forward, and not care what higher state courts have to say, in that those courts may not act quickly or at all. So, now local prosecutors and state judges will intervene in presidential elections or any federal election.
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.
Mark Levin Has Some Legal Advice for Team TrumpKatie Pavlich
Katie Pavlich
|
May 31, 2024 10:00 AM
AP Photo/AJ Mast
After former President Donald Trump was convicted by a judge and jury on 34 felonies Thursday afternoon, which were resurrected from misdemeanors past the statutes of limitations and upgraded as charges by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, constitutional law attorney and conservative radio host Mark Levin has some advice about what to do next.
Levin is urging Trump to get the case out of New York and to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. From a post 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. The problem now is that every day that goes by, the actions by the NY lower court bleeds into the federal, presidential election system.
Where does this end? Will other DA's use the Bragg-Merchan precedent, such as it is, going forward, and not care what higher state courts have to say, in that those courts may not act quickly or at all. So, now local prosecutors and state judges will intervene in presidential elections or any federal election.
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.