That is the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Here is how Justice Ginsburg interpreted it: “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.”
Even those of us who wish Trump would simply disapear feel that a $400 million+ dollar fine in a case that did not involve any damages to anyone qualifies as cruel and far more than unusual AND sets a precedent that will severely inhibit economic activity.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
(no message)
...how very "Laissez Faire" of you...
btw, the attached Reuters article reports that evidence shows DJT realized $100M in ill-gotten gains...do you have a higher bar for concern?
Link: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/donald-trumps-business-empire-peril-civil-fraud-trial-opens-new-york-2023-10-02/
In this case, cruel and unusual punishment.
Or do you disagree with Justice Ginsberg?
(no message)
appeal. Cry me a river. That creep has been using the legal system to screw paying small businesses and contractors for years. Fuck him.
P.S. If he asks real nice, I’m sure Vlad would get one of his pals to purchase the appeal bond for him.
My question is... for whom?
Clarence Darrow could not have changed the ruling... but of course he also lost the Scopes monkey trial.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUnOHihAU0
If this is such a clear 8th Amendment issue, should be a slam dunk. Maybe even Alina Habba could make the argument that’s this obvious, yes?
My guess is it will stand, or even if there is some reduction, it will remain a massive number.
interesting to watch.