uh… correct me if I’m wrong but, isn’t his New York case a STATE level case, I fail to see how the Supreme Court could even justify having jurisdiction here.
It’s not like it’s a judgement of a federal level law. While federal overrides state, there is no conflicting law here. He is being sentenced for a state level crime, at the state level, before being appointed his position. Now if they decide to give him jail time over the matter (they won’t, there’s no way that wouldn’t be challenged under current federal laws, the most they could be willing to do is jail him up until he gets certified at the inauguration) I could see it being argued. However there is no law forbidding a state from sentencing a state crime, regardless of status. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction here unless he gets jail time that would impede his position when appointed.
uh… correct me if I’m wrong but, isn’t his New York case a STATE level case, I fail to see how the Supreme Court could even justify having jurisdiction here.
It’s not like it’s a judgement of a federal level law. While federal overrides state, there is no conflicting law here. He is being sentenced for a state level crime, at the state level, before being appointed his position. Now if they decide to give him jail time over the matter (they won’t, there’s no way that wouldn’t be challenged under current federal laws, the most they could be willing to do is jail him up until he gets certified at the inauguration) I could see it being argued. However there is no law forbidding a state from sentencing a state crime, regardless of status. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction here unless he gets jail time that would impede his position when appointed.