Skip to main content
BoomMag: Readers and Fans
Advertise With Us Newsletter

WLT Report WLT Report

Advertise With Us Newsletter
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Against President Trump, Amy Coney Barrett Sides With Liberal Judges

This is a breaking news alert….

President Trump had appealed his conviction in the so-called “hush money case” to the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to halt his sentencing.

With a 5-4 majority of conservatives, there was a decent chance the Court would rule in his favor, but after Amy Coney Barrett flipped sides, the Court has declined to stop the sentencing.

Let’s just say she’s not exactly popular right now online:

You can read the order right here:

ADVERTISEMENT

But what actually happened here?

Jonathan Turley was on Fox News with Laura Ingraham and I think he did an excellent job breaking this down.

Watch here with captions and I’ll put the full transcript down below if that’s helpful to you:

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Laura Ingraham: Tomorrow for reaction to this, Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law prof, and Charlie Hurt, Washington Times opinion editor, both Fox News contributors.Professor Turley, let’s start with you.Look, the court doesn’t like to intervene in what may be considered political matters.Your take on this then I’ll tell you what I think the court should have done.
Prof. Jonathan Turley: Well, this is what some of us predicted when the appeals were just begun.Merchan really played this perfectly, and I say that not as a compliment.He knew that he was giving President-elect Trump very little runway by which to take an appeal off.He also knew that appellate courts generally prefer for sentences to be finalized to review the case as a whole.And he played those 2 cards to guarantee that he’ll be able to sentence President Trump tomorrow.And when that occurs, in many ways he’s going to create the ultimate mandate for President Trump.He will have established with finality the effect of lawfare on our political system.So President Trump will go in as many on the left want him to go in, as a convicted felon.But for many people in this country, he will also go in as someone who was the victim of lawfare.You know, this was the most outrageous of the cases.It was built on really not a novel but an unprecedented theory.One that even the Democratic senator from New Jersey recently called BS, I mean, said that it was completely invalid.And that’s the mandate that he will give this president going into office.
Laura Ingraham: Professor, we’ll get to Charlie in just a second.When you look at this though, one of the justifications for not granting the application for this stay was that it wasn’t a real inconvenience to the presidency because the judge had indicated there’s not going to be jail time, it’ll be there but it won’t be really inhibiting his work as president.But 4 justices disagreed with that.And the only one who didn’t, who was one of the Republican nominees, is Amy Coney Barrett.Of course, John Roberts, the other one.But Amy Coney Barrett voted with the majority.So there were a core 4 who believed that this was significant enough to say uh-uh, not pulling this nonsense.
Prof. Jonathan Turley: That’s right.And the division on that court really does reflect how troubling the case is overall.What this trial-level judge has done in Manhattan is to hold a presidential candidate, first now a president-elect, to his courtroom on a short leash.This is the same judge that gagged the leading candidate for president in a campaign where his case was one of the issues of most concern with voters.And it obviously is an equal concern among at least 4 justices.
Laura Ingraham: Yeah, Charlie, look on this case, I think it’s such a travesty.It’s one of those extraordinary cases where you know allowing the process to go forward in normal course to the appellate, we have serious problems facing this country.President Trump doesn’t need one more thing to deal with.That’s my view.And I think those justices saw this for what it was in the dissent.And unfortunately, there are 5 who, you know, disagreed.But you know, look, I guess it was a close call according to Professor Turley.It’s an important point and certainly the point that I think every American, whether you voted for Donald Trump or not, if you’re part of that 59, 60 percent of Americans who are, you know, express the pollsters that they’re hopeful that we can sort of move in a positive direction.They’re like, wait a minute, we got all these problems.This is not anywhere in the list of problems that I have.And of course, in this particular case, as Professor Turley just pointed out, you know, the real damage here was letting the case go forward in the first place.
Prof. Jonathan Turley: That’s right, the real damage occurred here.And the gagging of somebody who’s actually running for president, it runs counter to everything that we believe in in terms of free speech and running robust campaigns in this country.And of course, Donald Trump won, and he beat all of it.And this is just a reminder, I think, for a lot of people of what the left and what these crazy prosecutors did and tried to do to try to thwart the will of the American people.And the American people looked at it and said, yeah, we don’t care.We’re not going to be confused about this.We’re going to stick with the issues that we care about.And the issues in this case are not one of them, yeah.
Laura Ingraham: And Bragg today, Alvin Bragg was out today crowing about the case, saying how important it is for the country, Professor Turley.And I would also argue that Judge Mershon, by issuing this quote, unconditional discharge in this case, also kind of implicitly in my view admits this is ridiculous.I mean, I’m sorry, but unconditional discharge?But he’s a felon.To me, again, this is preposterous.I think the court should have done away with this.I just think that I think the court got this one wrong.And I don’t say it just because I support President Trump.I do support the presidency though.
Prof. Jonathan Turley: Yeah, I’m not surprised by Chief Justice Roberts.He often experiences a bit of sticker shock when it comes to institutional issues.He doesn’t want to get the court ahead of the politics of the moment.This is fairly consistent, I would say, with his past rulings.And I say that because I truly believe that what motivates him is the court as an institution.And he doesn’t want to see the court at these critical moments making this decision.But the problem with what’s happening in Manhattan is that this is the rawest form of lawfare.And of course, Bragg is its happiest warrior.But at the end of the day, you have a case that was a dead misdemeanor that was zapped back into life with this novel theory, then turned into this mountain of felonies, and then went before a judge and in my view discarded any sense of due process.We still do not know what the jury decided as to the underlying conduct in the case.I mean, I was in that courtroom.So was I.I was in disbelief as to how the court was ruling.This was a raw abuse of judicial and prosecutorial power in the United States.That’s what it was.But apparently, we have 5 justices on the Supreme Court who think this just has to go through its normal course.Are we surprised, Jonathan, by Amy Coney Barrett in this or not?
Prof. Jonathan Turley: No, Justice Barrett has been playing more and more of a central role or centrist role on the court.She’s often voting with the left of the court.She’s sort of carving out her own voice, her own place.And I’m not, I don’t want to condemn her for it.I can disagree with her decision.She’s a very thoughtful jurist.And what she did here is consistent with what a lot of appellate judges do.They really prefer overwhelmingly to have these cases completed, to have the sentence in so they can review the whole case.They hate interlocutory appeals.They hate these things coming up in partial form.And so she’s consistent in that regard.Well, anytime you say interlocutory appeal on the Ingraham Angle, it’s time to take a pause.

, , ,

 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

log in

Forgot password?

reset password

Back to
log in
Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
We invite you to become a WLT Report insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.