回复152楼:能读懂吗？
The Supreme Court could only get involved if some element of the appeal relates to the Constitution or federal law.

呵呵。。。遮遮掩掩了这么久终于拿了点东西出来，虽然还是很垃圾，但起码比空口无凭的指责有进步。值得鼓励。希望坚持住。🤣
可是你能读懂吗？could这个单词懂啥意思吗？床铺可以有大把理由去告上联邦最高法院。🤣
In Donald Trump's New York civil fraud case, his defense team has indeed raised several constitutional arguments that could potentially be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. One major claim is that the lawsuit violates Trump's due process rights. His defense argues that the New York Attorney General is using broad and vague laws against him in a politically motivated way. They also suggest that applying such penalties—such as seeking to ban him from running a business in New York—violates the Constitution’s "due process" and "excessive fines" protections. They argue that these penalties amount to a Bill of Attainder, a legislative act targeting a specific person for punishment without a trial​