Trump’s appeal is centered on the Eighth Amendment.
Justice Ruth Bader
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 2019 majority opinion in Timbs v. Indiana, a case relevant to Trump’s appeal of a civil fraud judgment, may be just what Trump needs to overturn his recent judgement.
Excessive fine
Trump’s appeal is centered on the Eighth Amendment, arguing the fine is excessive.
Firmly against Trump
Justice Ruth Bader stood firmly against Trump’s presidency. “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg said in 2016. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that,” she said.
‘No consistency’
“He has no consistency about him,” she continued. “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect,” she later said.
Disproportionate fine
Legal experts have cited the Timbs case, where the Supreme Court ruled against Indiana for a disproportionate fine, as precedent. Ginsburg’s stance on excessive fines and Trump’s legal battle were also contrasted.
Legalize the stealing
“The key to dealing with New York’s attempt to legalize the stealing of President Trump’s property is the 8th amendment and the Supreme Court’s most recent ruling,” Mark Levin, former chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese stated.
Excessive Fines Clause
“The prohibition embodied in the Excessive Fines Clause carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day,” Ginsburg stated. “Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies,” she said.
Compromised credibility
“Her statements are now evidence of her intent and motivation in any appeal and central to the violations of the Eighth Amendment,” Levin explained. “Overall, Donald Trump rarely responded to the questions asked, and he frequently interjected long, irrelevant speeches on issues far beyond the scope of the trial. His refusal to answer the questions directly, or in some cases, at all, severely compromised his credibility,” Judge Arthur Engoron said.
Grotesque damages
“The size of the damages is grotesque and should shock the conscience of any judge on appeal. Even if the Democrat-appointed judges on the New York Court of Appeals were to ignore the obvious inequity and unfairness, the United States Supreme Court could intervene,” George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley wrote.
