Question for lawyers, can any conviction of any court of any jurisdiction be overturned by the US

[Eliot Rosewater]

Supreme Court?

I fear the answer.

[elleng]

1. No,

courts must have JURISDICTION of matters they handle, and Jurisdiction is peculiar to each MATTER.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. And there is NO way a conviction in Manhattan or Georgia can end up in the SC of the US?

Is it only the one the DOJ would be involved in that could be? Of the 3?

[elleng]

4. I would not say that, because laws are complex.

[fescuerescue]

10. Gore vs Bush was a Florida state matter

That got bumped the Supreme Court for the obvious reason that there is a Federal interest.

I suspect that this might happen again, since the felonies are predicated on Trump violating a Federal election law.

But that is years down the road.

[Marius25]

3. No. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over state prosecutions

The Supreme Court only has jurisdiction in two cases. 1) When other appellate courts request an appeal on Constitutional issues and 2) they have original jurisdiction on cases between two or more states and high ranking dignitaries.

[Ronwhynowhy]

6. State doesn't matter

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the entire US including state cases and even civil cases if they so choose

They can rule on any matter of law in the US

[Marius25]

11. No they can't. That's not how it works.

They only have appellate jurisdiction except in cases involving two or more states, or foreign ambassadors.

[Ronwhynowhy]

15. Sure but

Anyone can bring a federal case for any reason for any criminal or civil issue

In essence.

The Supreme Court can rule on any law in the US it wants to and word it however specifically or broadly they want

For example moving California voting against gay marriage to a federal court with no other state interest or foreign necessity

Real word

[Marius25]

17. No they can't.

It has to be a Constitutional issue that reaches the State (and usually Circuit) appellate courts.

The Supreme Court has no authority to disagree with the New York Criminal Court and demand they overturn the conviction.

[Ronwhynowhy]

22. Sure they do

The Supreme Court frequently overturns state laws

Most of their cases start from state laws

I dont know what you mean

They can absolutely tell New York no

[Ms. Toad]

25. It is relatively complex,

but, as a general rule, they cannot rule on state matters.

When they overturn state laws it is nearly always because the state law runs afoul of the federal constitution.

[NewHendoLib]

26. so is this something you are hoping for?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

27. You may want to review Article III of the U.S. Constitution

In particular, see the 2nd paragraph of Section 2.:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

[Brother Buzz]

14. So, did we, like, throw the Tenth Amendment out the window?

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[sheshe2]

23. +1

[Ligyron]

5. They only decide questions of constitutionally

[Eliot Rosewater]

7. So if convicted in Manhattan or GA but then appealed based on a Constitutional rights issue

it could then end up there?

If Constitutional rights being violated was the accusation?

[Ligyron]

8. In that case maybe so.

[Eliot Rosewater]

9. That is what I am afraid of. I am the one who assumes the gop will do the worst possible thing

which is why my predictions are so often correct.

3 SC justices for certain will abandon the law entirely to make cons happy, the question is will the other 2.

[emulatorloo]

12. The Supreme Court has ruled against Trump multiple times. They have also refused to even consider

some of his cases. Other than Clarence Thomas, they appear to have zero interest in protecting Trump.

[Eliot Rosewater]

13. Fingers crossed.

I appreciate everyone's answer.

[Tomconroy]

24. Yes.

[dpibel]

16. "Any"? No. But some can.

Just a couple notable examples: Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel) and Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda warning) were originally pure state criminal cases.

If a state case implicates the US Constitution, the Supremes can get involved.

But other than cases where the Supremes have original jurisdiction, it's always discretionary for them to take a case.

[Eliot Rosewater]

18. OK thanks, I ask because in spite of people telling me the SC does not have an interest in helping

him, I worry and wonder.

But if they did decide to run interference for him they would be busy because I think this is just the beginning.

[edhopper]

19. Yes

If they find a Constitutional matter in the case.
Unfortunately, this SCOTUS doesn't care about the Constitution and rules however they please.
They can intervene if the want to.

[Eliot Rosewater]

20. That is what I worry about

[edhopper]

21. You should be

They are lawless and can rule with impunity.