Every time he loses I'm happy.
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
261 points (99.2% liked)
News
38864 readers
2521 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I pray for the day this evil man turns into a corn cob.
I'm happy that she already has the money now.
Didn't the money already move to her possession?
What a petty little man donnie is, by the way.
The point is simply to inconvenience her as much as possible. Even when he knows the arguments won't hold up in court, it still means she has to expend more time/effort/money to follow up. And he has unlimited funds to inconvenience her.
This doesn't inconvenience her at all though. The case is done and settled. This is just him requesting appeal from the Supreme Court and them saying no again. She doesn't have to do anything about it. There's no effort on her part.
I'm not perfectly familiar with the process. SCOTUS is an appeals court; does her side not have to go argue? Or is it just the appellant asking the court and the court reviewing previous case documentation and the law? (Yeah, lol, "law", but I mean ideally.)
Her side doesn't have to do anything unless SCOTUS grants the appeal. Which they have repeatedly said they will not. If they granted the appeal and agreed to hear it, yes her side would have to go argue.
At this point it is just wasting the Justices' and their clerks' time to do the paperwork saying they won't hear the appeal.
The Supreme Court doesn’t hear every case. Appellants petition the Court to be heard, but four out of nine Justices have to vote to hear the case before it can go anywhere. This case didn’t clear the first hurdle.
Oh no the orange tumor fears having to pay for his crimes and by pay I mean money not really pay.
i believe the 5mil is in escrow, something to do with upfront paying when hes appealing. he still has the 86mil unpaid.
trump desperately trying to distract the media from reporting about her, and todd blanches involvement with epstein.
He'll just keep stomping his feet like a whiney toddler, hoping to wear them down until he gets his way. Can't believe we're not even halfway through his term yet.
Hopefully we're halfway through the last year of his life.
I read in one of the articles on this, there are no more avenues to reverse this now. Its final.
There's still other things like the 80mil damages case, but this one is now done.
So digitally raping this poor woman in a woman's dressing room wasn't enough for Trump?
Fucking dismiss it with prejudice already.
Edit: the appeal, not the judgement against Trump
You don't know what you're talking about....
The case is settled and he lost it. There's nothing to dismiss.
This is him appealing the lower court decision, and the Supreme Court saying they will not grant his appeal. They still have to say no whenever he requests appeal on it.
Yep, got my terminology a bit mixed up, but basically my message is that the Supreme Court needs to tell him to STFU or else we're going to be seeing this headline every week till he dies, because he will never stop.
Plus:
In federal courts, an appeal is generally a right and can only be taken from final results, allowing typically one appeal. If the appellate court finds no prejudicial errors, they will affirm the original conviction and sentence. Missing filing deadlines can lead to appeal dismissal, leaving the original decision unchanged; failure to comply with briefing schedules can also result in dismissal for lack of prosecution. If a bond principal loses on appeal, they may require a court order for exoneration of the bond.
https://rochybylawoffice.com/how-many-times-can-you-appeal-a-federal-case.html
So I'm unclear why we're on round two of this bullshit. Is there a reason why we're seeing the Court allow multiple appeals on a final judgement? Is it because its a civil case subject to different rules, or just because he's president?
They're not allowing appeal. That's exactly what they're saying. There hasn't been an appeal at SCOTUS yet because when he requested one before, they said no they will not hear it. They denied his writ of certiorari. Once that happens, you generally get one single petition for them to reconsider it, filed within 25 days of the initial denial of writ, and the reconsideration is virtually never granted. That's what this is. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_44
They denied his writ of certiorari the first time. This was his one petition to have them reconsider that, which they also denied. He will likely keep trying to file, because he is a manchild, but it won't even make it passed the law clerks because he's used his petitions. It'll just get auto-denied.
This happens thousands of times per year. The Court denies certiorari for some 7000-8000 cases per year. We don't get headlines for them because it's extremely routine. We're only getting this one because it's the President and he gets clicks.
If he keeps filing, is there a point where the court starts to discipline his attorney for wasting court time?
Like I assume practically speaking subsequent filings would make clerks waste their time, and probably at least speak to a justice given the sitting POTUS is involved. But at some point it seems like the lawyer submitting any subsequent appeal is just asking for a SCOTUS justice to write the bar association a negative recommendation about their conduct.
That, I'm not entirely sure. The Supreme Court has its own bar association that an attorney must be a member of in order to file cases with the Supreme Court or argue cases in the Court. I don't think there have been many attorneys try to get themselves disbarred from SCOTUS.
Thanks for the clarification - it wasn't evident in the article.
Yeah the AP is really good at getting breaking news out, with just the bare minimum factual information. They don't go into any detail or editorialization.
Like, they also mention the other case, where the $83M verdict was awarded, but don't go into any editorial opinion on it. Just that SCOTUS hasn't acted on that appeal yet.
So we are going to hear more headlines when they do review that petition here in a couple of months and probably be back where we are today with "Didn't they just deny that a few weeks ago?". When in reality it's two different cases.
Make him pay all her legal fees too, assholes
And then shoot him in his stupid fucking face.