Judge upholds $83m E Jean Carroll defamation verdict against Trump - eviltoast
  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    SCOTUS won’t override a state court on matters of state law. The will always defer to the highest court in each state unless there is a federal question involved.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is straight up not true.

      Here’s an example I found after a real quick Google search: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-against-north-carolina-republicans-over-election-law-theory/

      The Supremacy Clause gives the US Supreme Court authority to overturn decisions by any lower court, including State Supreme Courts.

      The concept of “independent state legislature” doctrine was shot down by SCOTUS back in 2022.

      See:

      Moore v. Harper

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I never said they can’t, I said they won’t unless there is a Federal question. State supreme courts are experts on their state laws and the SCOTUS will not interpret state laws for states.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I literally just gave you an example though. Federal elections are run by the states. The US Supreme Court ruled against the North Carolina Supreme Court regarding that state’s running of elections. They may be federal elections, but it’s completely a state issue.

          Or we could talk about their history with state gerrymandering cases?

          Especially with this current court, it’s quite the claim to say with such certainty that they will or will not do something. But, historically speaking, you’re wrong.

          • stoly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            And I also gave examples. I’m not really sure what you’re going on about. Just walk away.

            • prole@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              You gave me an example of…? Your claim is that (with a strange amount of certainty) that the US Supreme Court doesn’t do X. I gave you evidence that they have and will do X. That’s all I needed to do in order to support my claim.

              You can’t really prove a negative with examples so I’m not sure what you mean when you say that you also gave examples? Examples of what???

              Is every SCOTUS case ever (that isn’t one I mentioned) an example?

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s a total non sequitur, here. Circuit then SCOTUS is the appellate path, as I said. No one has even discussed the merit or likelihood of success of any such appeals.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The Supreme Court has the right to issue certiorari over any case with a few exceptions where Congress has created specific courts to have original jurisdiction. Bankruptcy court is an example as well as immigration court. The question isn’t whether they can but which cases to prioritize given the amount of time they have available each year.