Ginsburg May Have Given Trump Key To Overturning NY Judgment

(Patriot Insider) – Former President Donald Trump might just be able to overturn the whopping $355 million civil fraud judgment against him thanks to a majority opinion written back in 2019 by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away in 2020, which is utterly hilarious because Ginsburg was not at all a fan of Trump. I mean, that’s not surprising given she was a raging liberal, but it just adds an element of irony to the whole situation.

In July 2016, Ginsburg told The New York Times, in the thick of the presidential race, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.”

Well, it actually turned out alright. In fact, it was better than alright. Things were improving rapidly. The country was respected on the geopolitical stage and there weren’t any major global conflicts at the time. All in all, not bad for someone who made their living from real estate and being a reality show host.

“For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that,” Ginsburg remarked, as per The Western Journal. The SCOTUS justice really started to get nasty later on in an interview with CNN the same month where she referred to the then-presidential candidate as a “faker.”

“He has no consistency about him,” the justice asserted in her criticism of Trump. “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

“After receiving much criticism for wading into the presidential race, Ginsburg released a statement saying her remarks were ‘ill-advised,’ according to NPR,” the report said.

“Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect,” she went on to say.

“For his part, Trump stated his intention while president to replace Ginsburg with Judge Amy Coney Barrett if given the chance, according to Axios. And he did so in October 2020 following the justice’s death a month earlier,” The Western Journal noted.

Just a year before that happened, in February 2019, Ginsburg was given the task of writing up the majority opinion in the Timbs v. Indiana case, which could play a massive role in Trump’s appeal of New York Judge Arthur Engoron’s ruling in the civil fraud case brought against him by Attorney General Letitia James.

Engoron determined that the Trump Organization raised the value of properties owned by the company in order to get better loan terms.

“On Feb. 16, the judge imposed a fine of $355 million plus $100 million in interest, which will continue to accrue at approximately $100,000 each day, CBS News reported. Last week, Trump’s attorneys filed a request to stay enforcement of the judgment for 30 days as they prepared their client’s appeal, but Engoron denied the request,” the WJ went on to write.

On Monday, Trump’s legal team filed his official notice of appeal. The Western Journal has revealed the appeal will attempt to make the argument that the judge’s ruling is in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits excessive fines. I’d say the amount chosen in this case is definitely excessive. It almost seems as if those involved in the case are attempting to tear down the business that Trump poured himself into as punishment for his political beliefs.

“Trump’s legal team argued during the trial that all the loans from banks were paid on time, in full, so there were no victims. The banks made millions of dollars by loaning to his company and want to do more business with the Trump Organization, they argued,” the WJ article divulged.

“But New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office built its case on New York Executive Law 63(12), which does not require damages to be shown and grants the court the power to impose whatever penalties the judge deems proper,” it added.

In September of 2023, Judge Engoron issued a ruling that called for the Trump Organization to be dissolved, however a New York appeals court stayed the decision a month later in order to provide Trump with an opportunity to appeal.

Again, the radical left is utilizing the court system as a means of punishing Trump for daring to stand against their agenda and for having the intestinal fortitude to dismantle their infrastructure while he was in office for four years. They know if he gets another term he will obliterate their network within the government. They also do not want others like Trump to rise up and take his place. Thus, by making an example out of him, the deep state believes they can scare folks into silence.

“In January, The Associated Press reported that after analyzing 70 years of civil fraud cases under Executive Law 63(12) — nearly 150 cases in all — its researchers concluded that Trump’s case would be the ‘only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses,'” the piece stated.

“Engoron ultimately did not include dissolution in his final ruling, but he did impose a massive fine and bar Trump from serving as an officer or director of the Trump Organization for three years. His sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump were prohibited from doing so for two years,” the WJ disclosed.

During a recent Fox News town hall, while chatting about the judgment against him, Trump took time to read the actual text of the Eighth Amendment, which I’m guessing an active, sitting president may have never done before because in our day and age the Constitution is more or less just really old paper.

The amendment says, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Fox News host Mark Levin, who once served as the chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration, penned on X, “The key to dealing with New York’s attempt to legalize the stealing of President Trump’s property is the 8th amendment and the Supreme Court’s most recent ruling.”

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Eighth Amendment does indeed apply to states, in the Timbs case.

“The court ruled against Indiana for assessing a fine that was ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the gravity of the offense. The state was seeking to confiscate defendant Tyson Timbs’ $42,000 Land Rover. The value was more than four times the maximum $10,000 fine that he was liable for in a criminal case that involved controlled substances and conspiracy to commit theft,” the WJ wrote in its article.

“The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause,” the justices ruled.

“The prohibition embodied in the Excessive Fines Clause carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day,” Ginsburg went on to say in the case. “Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties.”

“They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies,” she declared, which definitely seems to be the case with Trump.

Letitia James based her entire political campaign for the office of attorney general on “get Trump,” even going so far as to refer to him as an “illegitimate president.”

Let’s hope that Trump’s appeal is successful as such a ruling would benefit the whole of America.

Copyright 2024.

You may also like...


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here