Good day all. A few weeks ago I wrote about the State of Missouri suing the State of New York accusing them of election interference. This was in regards to the kangaroo court case against the Greatest President of the 21st Century by the corrupt Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and ably assisted by the crooked Judge Juan Merchan.
As I recall Missouri is saying that these court cases where the corrupt judges issued gag orders on President Trump, violated the rights of the citizens of Missouri to hear what President Trump had to say. The State filed suit against New York. Since this is a state v state case, it goes straight to the Supreme Court. Now the court has issued a ruling that New York must respond to Missouri. Here are the details from Just the News:
The United States Supreme Court on Monday ordered the state of New York to respond to a lawsuit filed by the state of Missouri by this Wednesday, according to Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.
For some information, this story came out on July 22nd and New York was required to respond by Wednesday July 24th.
Bailey filed the lawsuit on July 3, and argued that the prosecution of former President Donald Trump in his hush money case, along with the court’s gag orders, damaged Missourians’ right to hear him speak freely ahead of the election.
The lawsuit requests that the Supreme Court rule that New York illegally interfered with the presidential election, and postpone any sentencing in the court case until after the election. It also seeks to have the gag orders that are still imposed on the former president removed.
Well, New York responded and as expected, it was basically a “Go pound Sand” reply. Here are those details from the Washington Examiner:
New York officials are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a challenge from Missouri regarding former President Donald Trump’s criminal conviction and sentencing.
“Missouri’s suit is based entirely on an ongoing criminal case between the Manhattan DA and former President Trump and does not present an actual controversy between sovereign States,” New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office wrote in a 48-page response to the lawsuit.
“Moreover, former President Trump has already raised, and the New York state courts are already adjudicating, the same issues Missouri seeks to raise,” the response continued. “And Missouri’s claims are patently meritless.”
What was actually meritless were the cases brought by New York. They were designed for one purpose and one purpose only. To keep the Greatest President of the 21st Century from winning the 2024 election.
James argued that Missouri’s filing had no legal basis and “seriously undermines the integrity of the courts and risks setting a dangerous precedent that encourages a flood of similar, unmeritorious litigation.”
Integrity of the courts? Don’t make me laugh. New York discarded any integrity their courts had years ago.
Bailey’s lawsuit accuses New York of violating the First Amendment rights of Missouri residents. James argued that the matter could be solved in New York courts, not the Supreme Court.
“Allowing Missouri to file this suit for such relief against New York would permit an extraordinary and dangerous end-run around former President Trump’s ongoing state court proceedings and the statutory limitations on this Court’s jurisdiction to review state court decisions,” the response reads.
Of course James would want this heard in a New York court. They would promptly throw it out, not because there was no case, but because the New York judiciary has become the laughingstock of the United States. There is also the issue of conflict of interest. Since New York is a party to the case, as is the New York judiciary, they couldn’t hear it. Finally, and James would know this if she had actually read the constitution, in legal disputes between states, the case is always heard by the Supreme Court. Period, Full Stop. Mic Drop.
“Former President Trump has already filed a motion to vacate the jury verdict, which, if he succeeds, would obviate his sentencing,” James’s response reads. “Even if the motion is denied, he can appeal his conviction, and his sentence may well be stayed pending appeal.”
And that is an entirely different matter involving an entirely different case and individual Meathead. Yes, if/when he wins the appeals the state matter may become moot. Or it may not. This is dealing with the suppression of a political candidate’s 1st Amendment rights to speak in a different state entirely. I suspect that this is going to be heard by the court. It should prove very interesting if it is.
***Update***
Not surprisingly, SCOTUS has ruled against Missouri.
Thatisall
(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
