Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Anyone else who does more litigation than I do please feel free to correct me, but I don't think this is a viable strategy (presuming some broad similarities between US and Canadian law). Absent some extraordinary circumstance, in any appellate proceedings, Trump will be restricted to the evidence adduced and the issues/arguments made in the court below (only now with the additional onus of demonstrating some incorrectness, unreasonableness, or palpable and overriding error in the judgement of the court below). They have no choice but to put their best foot forward in the court of first instance.
If I'm more or less on the mark, then this smacks of just public relations for the Trump base (to make the inevitable losses at the trial court level appear to be "all part of the plan").
|
I am not a lawyer, nor do I understand the difference between the Canadian and US Legal systems, but I think there are some.
I watched some documentary before the election and there were references to other court cases where a “lose to get to the Supreme Court” method was used. I’ll try to remember what it was and include a reference.