Mark Levin: The Supreme Court needs to take up this case

Mark Levin: The Supreme Court needs to take up this case

‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ host Mark Levin makes his case for the Supreme Court to take on the criminal conviction of former President Donald Trump in New York.

Subscribe to Fox News!
Watch more Fox News Video:
Watch Fox News Channel Live:

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most-watched television news channel for 18 consecutive years. According to a 2020 Brand Keys Consumer Loyalty Engagement Index report, FOX News is the top brand in the country for morning and evening news coverage. A 2019 Suffolk University poll named FOX News as the most trusted source for television news or commentary, while a 2019 Brand Keys Emotion Engagement Analysis survey found that FOX News was the most trusted cable news brand. A 2017 Gallup/Knight Foundation survey also found that among Americans who could name an objective news source, FOX News was the top-cited outlet. Owned by FOX Corporation, FNC is available in nearly 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.

Watch full episodes of your favorite shows
The Five:
Special Report with Bret Baier:
Jesse Watters Primetime:
The Ingraham Angle:
Fox News @ Night:

Follow Fox News on Facebook:
Follow Fox News on Twitter:
Follow Fox News on Instagram:

You're the smartest of all audiences why Because we get into things that others Are not going to get into and other Networks and so forth and I don't do the Uh fan dancing and everything else to Grab your attention substance Intelligence that's what I do here and We're going to need that today right now I want to explain something to You not enough attention is given to What happens in this Manhattan case in The options for Donald Trump and the American people since that case's Decision I'm very frustrated with Lawyers who come on TV or radio I write Articles saying that basically Donald Trump is stuck in the New York judicial Gulag he is not very troubled by lawyers Who don't do their research who don't Look at the the precedent that's in Front of us for the opportunities for President Trump and his lawyers to try And get out of what is the New York Judicial Goog there are certain rits that we Talked about before that the Supreme Court can issue but it has to be asked If it's not asked it's not going to do a Damn thing because it doesn't have Original jurisdiction we don't have a Court system like they have in Israel And other places that can see something And say you know we're going to get Involved in that that's not the way it

Works and we don't want it to work that Way we don't want a super legislature The court system in this country is bad Enough quite frankly so what do we Do so I want to walk through this slowly So even the lawyers on MSNBC and CNN can Understand although I don't think they Give a damn but we do the American People you have in this case apart from All the local issues and all the Rest issues involving federal election Law issues involv in the presidential Election the highest federal official in The nation being chosen you have federal Constitutional issues First Amendment Free Speech the gag order yes but even More than that the idea that a Non-disclosure agreement violates Campaign laws is not only false on the Law but that would violate the First Amendment the Fifth Amendment due Process and equal protection rights also Conveyed in on the states by the 14 Amendment as they were ratified that Amendment after the Civil War and the Sixth amendment you have a right to Competent councel a council can't be Competent when they're endlessly being Interrupted sabotaged can't call proper Witnesses don't have notice of what laws Are involved in so forth and so on then You have Facts facts that suggest well this isn't A mistake the timing of the case after

The federal authorities rejected it and Local authorities rejected it this case Was brought for the purpose of Interfering in a federal election Federal campaign and um usurping Federal Authority and it was timed in order to Create this very Convoluted slow appell process within The state so major issues could not be Resolved even if that was the proper Line of appell Courts uh before the Election so this is a uh ongoing Violation now the question is is whether Donald Trump will have to wear an ankle Brace whether he'll have to get Permission from a probation officer Every time he travels to a state whe Their sentencing will be stayed and on And on so we're all waiting Around for politically Democrat judges To make Decisions that belong in the federal Government this is Fundamental and it's not just one Instance these are multiple federal Constitutional and legal Issues that cannot be resolved by the State of New York that must re be Resolved at the federal level must be Resolved at the federal level the issues Are compelling they're Overwhelming for this election and Future elections for this Republic how We elect

Presidents and for our electoral System if there's ever been a case that The Supreme Court should take up and I Would argue would take up it's this case It checks off all the unconstitutional And not unlawful Activities that would Trigger Supreme Court Intervention now I can't predict that in Advance the basic push back I get from Some of these lawyers who really don't Understand what they're saying is Well The Court's not going to take it up how Do they know the court took up Bush Versus Gore the bush and Cheney campaign Weren't waiting around for a final Decision by the Florida Supreme Court Court and said well the Supreme Court Won't take up the case they took the Case to the Supreme Court they weren't Even sure how to characterize their case As an emergency appeal the court Accepted it as a rid of ciari doesn't Matter on December 8th in a 4 to3 Decision the Florida Supreme court Ordered immediate Manual recounts of Overvotes for the office of president in All Counties where such recounts had not Already taken place they were changing State election law And they were cherry-picking counties That would help Gore the Bush campaign Petitioned the US Supreme Court for stay Of the recount order writes Britannica

Which was granted on December 9th Treating the petition as Aid of sirari a Formal request for review the court Agreed to take up the case Bush versus Gore the Florida Supreme Court was out Of control they were interfering with The eventual electoral count in Florida They were trying to deliver the race the Gore the justices among other things They're Flesh and Blood they're human Beings they shower like we do they eat Like we do they do other things like we Do and they see what's taking place they Saw that this court was out of control Changing election laws to Advantage Al Gore and the Supreme Court knew it an Oral argument on December 11 Bush's Legal team asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had exceeded its Authority By ordering the manual recount of Undervotes while Gore team contended That the case having already been Decided at the state level was not a Matter for consideration at the federal Level in a pecum ruling issued the Following day the court found 7 the two That owing to inconsistencies and manual Recounting methods and standards between Florida counties the Florida Court's Order of a manual recount am maned to a Violation of the equal protection clause In the 14th amendment by a smaller Majority 5 to four the court also ruled That no new recount could take place

Because none could be finished by the Safe Harbor deadline the date set by Federal law by which states were Required to resolve any disputes Regarding the selection of presidential Electors in order to guarantee that Their final determination quote shall be Conclusive and shall govern in the Counting of the electoral votes as Provided in the Constitution unquote the Extent to which the court Went to stop what the Florida Court was Doing to stop the recounts in the middle Of the recounting to say that's enough Your deadline has been met and that's The end of it in Florida is far more Extraordinary far more extraordinary Than Anything Donald Trump and his lawyers Would be asking the Supreme Court to do Why these are federal law federal Constitutional violations Federal Jurisdictional Violations by an acting State judge and A prosecutor by two people And it's Ongoing sentencing and other issues have To be decided by the local judge and Then the appell level and then the level After that this is an ongoing violation It doesn't even matter what the final Court has to say again if I'm Donald Trump's lawyers I go through that

Process but you go to the Supreme Court Of the United States now how do we get To the Supreme Court of the United States this is where people get bogged Down there are rits at common Law and it really doesn't matter which RIT you follow here's a piece by former Attorney General Griffin Bell he would Later become Attorney General under Jimmy Carter in the uh Southern Methodist University law school law Review the federal appell courts and all Rits and it Discusses what these common law rits are Now it discusses it in the context of a Specific statute the all Ritz act that Was passed as part part of the original Judiciary Act in 1789 not to get into The weeds we're smart we can follow This the preemptory common law rits are Among the most potent weapons in the Judicial Arsenal these common law rits are Used they're rare but they're used more And more within the federal chain of Courts so what does he say here well the Basis for General judicial supervision Over inferior courts inferior federal Courts through extraordinary or Preemptor rits can be found in early Common law the all Ritz Act is a direct Descendant of the juder act of 1789 Other than the Supreme Court which is Created by the

Constitution everything else is created By Congress all the other courts the Number of Courts how many justices are On the Supreme Court it granted federal Courts the power to issue extraordinary Rits and aid of their respective Juris Itions and while it is clear that the All rits act authorizes the issuance of The traditional common law rits of Mandamus and prohibitions the phrase all Rits also encompasses common law ciari Injunction subpoenas don't worry about All that what that really means is There's many ways of characterizing this Direct appeal to the Supreme Court and Relaying the facts and relaying what's Taken place under the law to the court In fact you can use multiple requests For rits says choosing the correct RIT To obtain the desired relief is no Longer necessary in the federal courts Different rits may be sought Alternatively or accumulatively the Choice is now unimportant the subtle Distinctions among the various rits have No effect on the relative usefulness as Vehicles for interlocutory review we're Not seeking interlocutory review at the Federal level but in effect we are of The state Court's activities hello Before you finish on the state side we Have some questions that the Supreme Court needs to answer the jurisdictional Prerequisite for application of the all

RIT Act is simply that the r be Necessary appropriate in a of the Jurisdiction of the issuing Court the Supreme Court in leai versus how's leer Company explain the power of the Courts Of appeals under the ACT quote the Question of naked Power has long been Settled by this court since the court of Appeals could at some stage of the Proceedings entertain appeals in these Cases it is power and proper Circumstances to issue rits of mandamus Reaching them this is an expression of Prospective or concurrent appell Jurisdiction the power of the Courts of Appeals to issue rits is not limited to Cases where an appeal has already been Filed rather this power of review Extends to all proceedings where the Actions of the trial judge at some Future stage of the litigation may be Reviewable that applies to the federal Chain but as I explained Here we have violations Of federal law of federal constitutional Provisions by a state Court now does the Supreme Court does The federal government ever get involved In State Court decisions or state law Decisions there state regulatory Decisions you better believe It there are things called Express Federal preemption which is what we have Here Federal Constitution Federal due

Pro process rights equal protection Rights under the Constitution as applies To the States Federal jurisdiction under The federal election law under a federal Presidential election and I could go on And on and on you have implied Federal Preemption you have a states that are Obstructing Federal preemption you have All this litigation of precedential Activity that's taken place before that Gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction a State cannot regulate Congress which is What it's doing In that Court when it takes over uh Authority for determine what a federal Election violation Is that's important or the equal Protection clause or the due process Clause or the First Amendment Free Speech clause about a non-disclosure Agreement federal courts starting with The Supreme Court have intervened in State actions before civil rights issues Death penalty issues Bush versus Gore a Presidential election issue Where you have Federal jurisdiction Issues and how have they used it well The supremacy clause they've used the Commerce Clause they've used the Necessary Proper Clause when it comes to Regulating Federal elections especially A presidential election Congress has Exclusive plenary power and the Supreme Court has overall

Authority when you have an extraodinary Radical Extreme multitudinous case of violations Of federal law whether it's substantive Whether it's process whether it's Jurisdiction this is the case me as I Said first out of the gate I'd file Common law rits I'd file a RIT of Prohibition that restrains a body Exercising Public Power from exceeding Its powers or usurping jurisdiction Which it does not have seems like this You could file a rid ofand damus Ordering a lower court in this case the State the state courts to stay their Actions while the Court consider it it Might go with a reri arguing that there Is a statutory basis for it it doesn't Matter you've got to take it to the door Of the Supreme Court they will decide Whether they take it or not and if they Don't shame on them because if there was Ever a basis for what we call a common Law RIT it's this and if they don't take it In the Trump case they're going to have To take it in the future because these Dark blue states are not going to stop Unless they're stopped hey Sean Hannity Here hey click here to subscribe to Fox News YouTube page and catch our hottest Interviews and most compelling analysis You will not get it anywhere else

You May Also Like

About the Author: Roaldo

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *