Trump asks Supreme Court to Block New York Hush Money Sentencing

Wednesday, January 08, 2025

President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to block criminal proceedings in his hush money case in New York, with a sentencing hearing scheduled for Friday.

Posted by jpw at 06:30 PM | 11 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

HITTING THE DOCKET: Trump has now applied to the US Supreme Court to get a stay in his sentencing in his NY election interference case.

[image or embed]
-- Katie Phang (@katiephang.bsky.social) January 8, 2025 at 9:33 AM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Us proles need to wait years, decades even, for the court process to work itself out.

Dear Leader, however, gets to just apply for a rubber stamp gold star from Roberts and he gets off for everything and anything under a new absurd legal doctrine that turns the entire notion of our country and Constitution on its head.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2025-01-08 09:27 AM | Reply

Pretty funny, really.

The Judge is trying to let him off with a little slap on his tiny wrist, not even making him show up... but King Trump is above the Law, and embarrassing him even a little is verboten.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2025-01-08 11:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sotomayor picks up the appeal.

#3 | Posted by chuffy at 2025-01-08 06:39 PM | Reply

Trump will be a coward all the way to the end.

It's not that he can't cough up the money. He's just afraid the Democrats will make a big show about his conviction and the billions he had to pay for losing his case.

Mainly, Trump hates being called a loser.

#4 | Posted by Twinpac at 2025-01-08 06:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sotomayor picks up the appeal.

So she had to determine if Lewzer's arguments for the appeal are different from his losing arguments during the trial and subsequent jury conviction?

#5 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-01-08 07:04 PM | Reply

Or does she determine if he is immune to the whole thing, guilty as charged or not?

#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-01-08 07:11 PM | Reply

He doesn't have to do this,

all he has to do is declare it all null and void.......he can ask the court but if they say no

then all he has to do is disband the supreme court.

UNLESS you jerk offs were lying about him being a fascist worse than hitler..

#7 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2025-01-09 07:34 AM | Reply

Good questions. Frankly, he has been found guilty of a state crime. Why would the SCOTUS block his sentencing? He is NOT President. And IF I was the judge, I just might have to rethink sentencing and maybe give him what ordinary citizens would get.

#8 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2025-01-09 03:51 PM | Reply

Merchan should give Trump EXACTLY what he'd give anyone else. No more, no less.

If higher courts have to say a state can't prevent a President from fulfilling his Constitutional duties ... so be it.

That's not, and shouldn't be, Merchan's call.

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-01-09 04:08 PM | Reply

Request denied.

"The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons," the order reads. "First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump's state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect's responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court's stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge' after a brief virtual hearing." lawandcrime.com

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2025-01-09 08:17 PM | Reply

That's not, and shouldn't be, Merchan's call.

Actually, it is in the first instance. Absent a trial court ruling there is no higher court ruling.

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2025-01-09 08:27 PM | Reply