As a member of the liberal left, the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was no fan of Donald Trump and probably would have loved to see him embattled on so many legal fronts. And yet, it seems that she was the one who wrote the majority opinion in a case that will likely be the key to getting Trump out of his current legal woes.
By now, I’m sure you’ve heard all about New York Judge Arthur Engoron’s ruling against Trump in his recent civil fraud case.
Of course, New York Attorney General Letitia James has claimed for a long time that Trump is a shady businessman who has cheated his way to the top. Specifically, her case against him alleges that Trump overstated the value of a number of his properties so that he would get better loan terms for them.
Now, it might be problematic if Trump hadn’t paid back those loans or if the banks had not agreed to the terms of the loans. But neither is the case. As Trump and his legal team have proved without a doubt, every single one of the loans and properties in question was paid back in full, with interest, and even early.
So, there are no victims of any supposed crime.
Plus, you can’t tell me that the banks involved didn’t know what they were doing. I mean, it’s their job to know the accurate values of the properties used as collateral.
But apparently, none of that mattered to James, who was asking for a whopping $370 million in damages to no one.
Now, Judge Engoron could not agree on everything James wanted. However, thanks to New York Executive Law 63 (12), the court is basically allowed to determine whatever it wants in cases like these, imposing whatever penalties it sees fit.
For Engoron, he has fined Trump $355 million, plus $100 million interest, which continues to accrue at $100,000 per day, according to CBS News. Trump is also banned from leading the Trump Organization for three years and his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump for two years.
Naturally, Trump’s legal team has appealed the ruling.
The basis of their argument, as it should be, is the Eighth Amendment, which bans excessive fines or punishment from being levied.
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
And as I mentioned before, this amendment has been used quite successfully in cases against states before.
The most recent took place in 2019, in which Ruth Bader Ginsberg ruled that the state of Indiana had imposed a “grossly disproportionate” fine against Tyson Timbs. The state wanted to take his $42,000 Land Rover despite the maximum fine for his crimes being only $10,000.
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 rulinghttps://t.co/Q8XETyOHAz
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) February 21, 2024
In her opinion and ruling of the case, she noted that such “prohibition in the Excessive Fines Clause” had been used as far back as “Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions from the colonial era” to today.
She also correctly stated that “such fines undermine other liberties.” For example, she wrote that they can be used to “retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.”
Funny, that’s exactly what the fines against Trump seem to be, especially since James pretty much made an oath to “get Trump” when she took office.
Now, of course, I doubt Ginsberg would be thrilled that her words will now be used in favor of Trump. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t still true.
