|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 27, 2024 22:29:12 GMT
What the hell does this have to do with the constitution? SCOTUS is not Trump's private kangaroo court. The Eighth Amendment protects against excessive fines, which an $80+ million judgement for simply denying an allegation would. This bullshit again? Do learn the difference between criminal fines and civil verdicts, before vomiting more of this fact-vacant drivel. |
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 27, 2024 22:31:51 GMT
So a judge upheld his own ruling? Apparently so, unless there are two judges named Lewis Kaplan. Strange he unheld his own ruling, I mean that's gotta be one for the history books. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 27, 2024 22:33:58 GMT
The Eighth Amendment protects against excessive fines, which an $80+ million judgement for simply denying an allegation would. This bullshit again? Do learn the difference between criminal fines and civil verdicts, before vomiting more of this fact-vacant drivel. I thought we left it at SCOTUS hasn't yet decided whether or not excessive fines applies to civil penalties? Since they're SCOTUS, they could easily rule that it does. |
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 27, 2024 22:34:00 GMT
Do you know what a tweet is? These are her tweets. She tweeted (you can look up what that means) that she is a "massive apprentice fan." Also tweeted about having sex with Donald Trump for money. Putting aside her beastiality fetish etc, it seems that she never met Donald Trump in her life. He didn't assault her because she liked The Apprentice? Are you high? The assault supposedly took place in the 90's. If he had done that to her in the 90's why was she a big fan of The Apprentice in the 00's? |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Apr 28, 2024 0:20:00 GMT
So a judge upheld his own ruling? Keep swinging and missing. Your orange ape has been unmasked. The judge did not uphold his own ruling. He upheld the ruling of 12 jurors on legal grounds, not on the merits of the case. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Apr 28, 2024 12:36:28 GMT
He didn't assault her because she liked The Apprentice? Are you high? The assault supposedly took place in the 90's. If he had done that to her in the 90's why was she a big fan of The Apprentice in the 00's? Because it's a TV show and she found it entertaining? |
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 28, 2024 13:31:59 GMT
The assault supposedly took place in the 90's. If he had done that to her in the 90's why was she a big fan of The Apprentice in the 00's? Because it's a TV show and she found it entertaining? And the man she says raped her was the star... yeah, she just found it entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Apr 28, 2024 13:58:33 GMT
Because it's a TV show and she found it entertaining? And the man she says raped her was the star... yeah, she just found it entertaining. So you are indeed saying he didn't assault her because she liked The Apprentice, correct? |
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 28, 2024 14:00:24 GMT
And the man she says raped her was the star... yeah, she just found it entertaining. So you are indeed saying he didn't assault her because she liked The Apprentice, correct? I don't see liking a show where your rapist is the star. It makes the claim extremely suspect, beyond reasonable doubt. If I were on the jury that would make me vote not guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 28, 2024 17:22:44 GMT
This bullshit again? Do learn the difference between criminal fines and civil verdicts, before vomiting more of this fact-vacant drivel. I thought we left it at SCOTUS hasn't yet decided whether or not excessive fines applies to civil penalties? Since they're SCOTUS, they could easily rule that it does. This isn't a civil administrative penalty, this is a tort verdict. Do try to keep up. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 28, 2024 19:04:26 GMT
I thought we left it at SCOTUS hasn't yet decided whether or not excessive fines applies to civil penalties? Since they're SCOTUS, they could easily rule that it does. This isn't a civil administrative penalty, this is a tort verdict. Do try to keep up. Again, if SCOTUS decides to say it applies, then it applies. I'm sure there are other constitutional grounds on which Trump can appeal. Denying an allegation isn't defamation of character, and E. Jean Carroll is a proven liar whose reputation is not worth $90 million.
This is yet another hack ruling by a hack New York judge that will be overturned, just like Engoron will be, just like Merchan will be, and just like the judge in the Weinstein case was.
|
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 28, 2024 19:56:19 GMT
This isn't a civil administrative penalty, this is a tort verdict. Do try to keep up. Again, if SCOTUS decides to say it applies, then it applies. I'm sure there are other constitutional grounds on which Trump can appeal. Denying an allegation isn't defamation of character, and E. Jean Carroll is a proven liar whose reputation is not worth $90 million.
This is yet another hack ruling by a hack New York judge that will be overturned, just like Engoron will be, just like Merchan will be, and just like the judge in the Weinstein case was.
Well, Jack, out here in the real world: why don't you give me one reason the 8th Amendment applies to a tort claim between two individual litigants when no government entity is a party to the cause of action? Go on, I am looking forward to this... Not every grounds for appeal is Constitutional. You seem to be bitching more about the results than the Constitutionality. You know what normally isn't Constitutional? Remittitur. For bonus points, square your theory with: The history of the Eighth Amendment and the decisions of this Court make it clear that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was designed to protect those convicted of crime.
Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 664-668. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 28, 2024 20:44:22 GMT
Again, if SCOTUS decides to say it applies, then it applies. I'm sure there are other constitutional grounds on which Trump can appeal. Denying an allegation isn't defamation of character, and E. Jean Carroll is a proven liar whose reputation is not worth $90 million.
This is yet another hack ruling by a hack New York judge that will be overturned, just like Engoron will be, just like Merchan will be, and just like the judge in the Weinstein case was.
Well, Jack, out here in the real world: why don't you give me one reason the 8th Amendment applies to a tort claim between two individual litigants when no government entity is a party to the cause of action? Go on, I am looking forward to this... Not every grounds for appeal is Constitutional. You seem to be bitching more about the results than the Constitutionality. For bonus points, square your theory with: The history of the Eighth Amendment and the decisions of this Court make it clear that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was designed to protect those convicted of crime.
Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 664-668. I would say $90+ million in punitive damages is the functional equivalent of a criminal penalty, same as in the Engoron case. How many of these have to be overturned until you realize mone of these cases are legitimate? You had a ballot removal case that was overturned, an immunity case that is about to be overturned, a civil fraud case where there was no fraud, a defamation case where there was no defamation, a campaign violation case where there are no campaign violations, a documents case that ignores the PRA, and the J6 case for telling people to march peacefully. |
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 28, 2024 21:36:53 GMT
Well, Jack, out here in the real world: why don't you give me one reason the 8th Amendment applies to a tort claim between two individual litigants when no government entity is a party to the cause of action? Go on, I am looking forward to this... Not every grounds for appeal is Constitutional. You seem to be bitching more about the results than the Constitutionality. For bonus points, square your theory with: The history of the Eighth Amendment and the decisions of this Court make it clear that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was designed to protect those convicted of crime.
Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 664-668. I would say $90+ million in punitive damages is the functional equivalent of a criminal penalty, same as in the Engoron case. How many of these have to be overturned until you realize mone of these cases are legitimate? You had a ballot removal case that was overturned, an immunity case that is about to be overturned, a civil fraud case where there was no fraud, a defamation case where there was no defamation, a campaign violation case where there are no campaign violations, a documents case that ignores the PRA, and the J6 case for telling people to march peacefully. Bullshit, Jack. It is not the "functional equivalent of a criminal penalty," because there is no state actor involved. This "functional equivalent" exists only in your own rich inner life. I thought the ballot case was a bad idea. You can't claim otherwise, no matter how much your "special invisible friends" want you to believe in the opposite. Your Gish Gallop response is an obvious attempt to group in the strong and the weak cases. Now, stay on point, Jack. Can you do that? How on Earth would the 8th Amendment apply when no government entity is a party? That is the question I asked, and the one you want to try so very hard to avoid. Come up with any grounding in the law for this- go on, I am waiting. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 29, 2024 3:16:35 GMT
I would say $90+ million in punitive damages is the functional equivalent of a criminal penalty, same as in the Engoron case. How many of these have to be overturned until you realize mone of these cases are legitimate? You had a ballot removal case that was overturned, an immunity case that is about to be overturned, a civil fraud case where there was no fraud, a defamation case where there was no defamation, a campaign violation case where there are no campaign violations, a documents case that ignores the PRA, and the J6 case for telling people to march peacefully. Bullshit, Jack. It is not the "functional equivalent of a criminal penalty," because there is no state actor involved. This "functional equivalent" exists only in your own rich inner life. I thought the ballot case was a bad idea. You can't claim otherwise, no matter how much your "special invisible friends" want you to believe in the opposite. Your Gish Gallop response is an obvious attempt to group in the strong and the weak cases. Now, stay on point, Jack. Can you do that? How on Earth would the 8th Amendment apply when no government entity is a party? That is the question I asked, and the one you want to try so very hard to avoid. Come up with any grounding in the law for this- go on, I am waiting. Even if the argument is baseless, SCOTUS has accepted baseless arguments before, and issued baseless rulings. If a judge says that denying an allegation is defamation worth $90 million, I believe a fair-minded SCOTUS will find some way to strike it down using whatever pretzel logic they need to. |
|
