Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 17 May 2026, 2:40 pm » wrote: ↑

17 May 2026, 2:40 pm

Tell us how you think it gets there...

No, the U.S. Supreme Court does not only rule on cases that have gone through the entire standard legal process. While the vast majority of its docket consists of appeals that have climbed the ladder from federal trial courts to federal appeals courts (or through state supreme courts), the Court possesses explicit mechanisms to bypass the traditional pipeline. 
The three major exceptions that allow the Supreme Court to rule on cases outside the full appellate process are detailed below. 

1. Certiorari Before Judgment (The Bypass Rule) [1]
Under federal law (28 U.S.C. § 2101(e)), a case can be fast-tracked directly from a federal district (trial) court to the Supreme Court. The case must be filed in a U.S. Court of Appeals first, but the Supreme Court can grant a petition for "certiorari before judgment" to pull the case up before the appeals court ever reviews or rules on it. 

• The Standard: According to Supreme Court Rule 11, this is reserved for cases of "imperative public importance" that require immediate national resolution.
• Historical vs. Current Frequency: Historically, this power was used "once in a blue moon"—only three times between 1988 and 2019. However, the modern Court has seen a massive surge in this practice. As of 2026, the Court has granted certiorari before judgment dozens of times over the last several years to handle urgent national conflicts regarding immigration, election laws, and federal policy. 

2. Original Jurisdiction (The Trial Court Role)
Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a small subset of specific legal matters. This means the case starts and ends at the Supreme Court, without going through any lower trial courts first. 

• Types of cases: Disputes between two or more states (such as state border or water rights conflicts) and cases involving foreign ambassadors.
• How it functions: Because the Supreme Court is not built to hold traditional trials, it typically appoints a neutral legal expert called a "Special Master" to gather evidence, interview witnesses, and submit a fact-finding report. The Justices then rule on that report directly. 

3. The "Shadow Docket" (Emergency Orders)
The Court frequently rules on ongoing cases via its emergency docket (often called the shadow docket). Through this mechanism, the Court issues orders or grants temporary stays while a case is still actively bouncing around in the lower trial or appellate courts.

• Impact: While these are technically temporary procedural rulings (e.g., blocking a federal law from taking effect or halting an execution), they effectively decide the immediate real-world outcome of a case before it completes the standard trial and appeal lifecycle. 

None of which apply to Grifty's case.

Blackvegetable » 17 May 2026, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

17 May 2026, 11:39 am

the thread title is a lie.

The OP is a **** idiot

Nope. The COURT blocked payment as the article stated. 

COURTS don't issue injunctions unless there is SUBSTANCE to the appeal, ASSHOLE. YOU'RE REALLY THAT **** STUPID TO THINK OTHERWISE, ****!!

Now, go suck off your *** boyfriend. He said you were the BEST THERE EVER WAS AT THAT!!

Blackvegetable » 17 May 2026, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

17 May 2026, 11:39 am

the thread title is a lie.

The OP is a **** idiot 

 

Sounds like you are the idiot:

AI OverviewA federal appeals court has temporarily blocked Donald Trump from having to pay the $83.3 million defamation judgment to writer E. Jean Carroll. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paused the payout pending a Supreme Court review, requiring Trump to post an additional $7.4 million bond to cover accrued interest. [1, 2, 3]
 

Sounds like you are the idiot: AI OverviewA federal appeals court has temporarily blocked Donald Trump from having to pay the $83.3 million defamation judgment to writer E. Jean Carroll. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paused the payout pending a Supreme Court review, requiring Trump to post an additional $7.4 million bond to cover accrued interest. [1, 2, 3]

@Huey  



It was a STAY, Cretina.

Grifty LOST at the 2nd Circuit, and requested an en banc hearing. 

It was denied.

He begged for a last Hail Mary at SCOTUS and Team Carroll had no objection, on the condition that Grifty threw more money in the pot.

Remember, you are miserable at this stuff..
 

Beekeeper » Yesterday, 6:24 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:24 am

Nope. The COURT blocked payment as the article stated. 

COURTS don't issue injunctions unless there is SUBSTANCE to the appeal, ASSHOLE. YOU'RE REALLY THAT **** STUPID TO THINK OTHERWISE, ****!!

Now, go suck off your *** boyfriend. He said you were the BEST THERE EVER WAS AT THAT!!

It was a stay...it was not contested...

Grifty LOST his appeal at the 2nd Circuit and was denied en banc.
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 6:52 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:52 am

@Huey  

It was a STAY, Cretina.

Grifty LOST at the 2nd Circuit, and requested an en banc hearing. 

It was denied.

He begged for a last Hail Mary at SCOTUS and Team Carroll had no objection, on the condition that Grifty threw more money in the pot.

Remember, you are miserable at this stuff..

So at the moment the payment is blocked.

Thanks, liar.
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 6:53 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:53 am

It was a stay...it was not contested...

Grifty LOST his appeal at the 2nd Circuit and was denied en banc.

There you go again. SPINNING HARD what your handlers BLEW UP YOUR ***!!

Courts don't issue "stays" UNLESS there is SUBSTANCE TO THE APPEAL, ASSHOLE!! PERIOD!! REGARDLESS of what has occurred PRIOR to the stay/injunction. whatever

That has to really SUCK FOR YOU, HUH, COCKBREATH PIECE OF ****??

         

Beekeeper » Yesterday, 7:03 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:03 am

There you go again. SPINNING HARD what your handlers BLEW UP YOUR ***!!

Courts don't issue "stays" 

He LOST his appeal and his request for en banc was DECLINED.

This isn't a stay "on the merits", it's a procedural prayer.

 

Huey » Yesterday, 7:00 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:00 am

So at the moment the payment is blocked.

Thanks, liar.

It's not "blocked"....why would the 2nd Circuit "block" its own order?

it's a "stay"....google it.

Blackvegetable » 17 May 2026, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑

17 May 2026, 5:21 pm

None of which apply to Grifty's case.

Another example of why I don't usually play your games,  when presented with factual evidence of rebuttal, you always default to a lie.

RebelGator » Yesterday, 7:08 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:08 am

Another example of why I don't usually play your games,  when presented with factual evidence of rebuttal, you always default to a lie.

Under federal law (28 U.S.C. § 2101(e)), a case can be fast-tracked directly from a federal district (trial) court to the Supreme Court.


This was not a federal trial...it was Manhattan.


Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a small subset of specific legal matters. This means the case starts and ends at the Supreme Court, without going through any lower trial courts first. 


The case started in Manhattan.

The Court frequently rules on ongoing cases via its emergency docket (often called the shadow docket). Through this mechanism, the Court issues orders or grants temporary stays while a case is still actively bouncing around in the lower trial or appellate courts.

The case isn't "bouncing around"...it has moved through the appellate process, ending at the 2nd Circuit. That's the last stop before SCOTUS.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:14 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:14 am

Under federal law (28 U.S.C. § 2101(e)), a case can be fast-tracked directly from a federal district (trial) court to the Supreme Court.

This was not a federal trial...it was Manhattan.

Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a small subset of specific legal matters. This means the case starts and ends at the Supreme Court, without going through any lower trial courts first. 

The case started in Manhattan.

The Court frequently rules on ongoing cases via its emergency docket (often called the shadow docket). Through this mechanism, the Court issues orders or grants temporary stays while a case is still actively bouncing around in the lower trial or appellate courts.

The case isn't "bouncing around"...it has moved through the appellate process, ending at the 2nd Circuit. That's the last stop before SCOTUS.

Where else would it start,  but by an agenda driven, corrupt judiciary?

Isn't that the whole point?

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:07 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:07 am

It's not "blocked"....why would the 2nd Circuit "block" its own order?

it's a "stay"....google it.



 

Basically, at this time, he does not have to pay.

Appeals court temporarily blocks Trump $83M payment in E. Jean Carroll case 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... l-payment/

You are arguing over semantics.  

 
 
 

RebelGator » Yesterday, 7:19 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:19 am

Where else would it start,  but by an agenda driven, corrupt judiciary?

Isn't that the whole point?

These are jury verdicts...

You're a slack jawed rube.
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:05 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:05 am

He LOST his appeal and his request for en banc was DECLINED.

This isn't a stay "on the merits", it's a procedural prayer.

You funny. LINK to your claim!!

None exists, so you LOSE!!         

Huey » Yesterday, 7:21 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:21 am

Basically, at this time, he does not have to pay.

Appeals court temporarily blocks Trump $83M payment in E. Jean Carroll case 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... l-payment/

You are arguing over semantics.

That's wrong.

As a condition, he had to put up more money.

Do you have any idea what he is arguing?
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:25 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:25 am

That's wrong.

As a condition, he had to put up more money.

Do you have any idea what he is arguing?
 

 

Yes, interest accrued.

STFU Askholio.

Beekeeper » Yesterday, 7:23 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:23 am

You funny. LINK to your claim!!

None exists, so you LOSE!!       

How about the 2nd paragraph of your citation, *******.


Trump is heading to the justices after the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit rejected his presidential immunity claims and other efforts to avoid paying the sum late last month.
 

Huey » Yesterday, 7:28 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:28 am

Yes, interest accrued.

STFU Askholio.

No..

That's NOT what he's arguing.


Until you have some clue what you are talking about, don't talk.