I understand there are probably a lot of exceptions and varying rules, but in general I thought that in order to appeal a court decision you need to show that an error in law or fact was made. IOW, you can’t appeal a decision just because you don’t like it.
But Trump seems to automatically appeal everything he loses, usually in an effort to delay and/or make things so expensive for the other side by going back to court over and over that they just drop it. Even though he loses the decision most of the time, the strategy still seems to be effective.
How does he get to appeal so many decisions when the rules seem to say only a tiny percentage of decisions ought to be subject to it? Do his lawyers actually find ridiculous but somewhat plausible ways to show there are errors in all these hundreds of cases he appeals… or
Do the courts need to wait and schedule a date where they hear his lawyers arguments for whether there are any grounds for appeal (thereby getting the stall even though the appeal gets dismissed)?
One easy way to appeal any decision you don’t like is to say the presiding judge was biased. The court has to give you enough time to put your case together. Of course, eventually, you have to show evidence of that bias, but you can drag it out for months or years if need be. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Just like anyone can sue regardless of merit, anyone can appeal. There is no point where you get together and decide if the appeals have merit. The initial appeal, like the original suit, is more a paperwork thing. And, just like with original trial, his opponents can file to dismiss. A dismissal decision does not need to involve anyone showing up in court. The judge(s) just look at the paperwork. But, still, it costs money to have your lawyer submit a dismissal.
I do think his lawyers just come up with things that at least look plausible at first glance. Something like arguing the judge is biased is a pretty good one: that’s not easy to get dismissed. Dismissal happens with things that can be decided entirely by the facts that both parties agree with. It basically means “there is no plausible case here.”
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that courts feel more restrained stomping on frivolous appeals of cases that weren’t themselves considered frivolous than they do with frivolous cases by themselves. There is a right to appeal, after all.
That said, in general the courts are very slow to consider someone a vexatious litigant or filing “strategic lawsuits against the public participation” (SLAPP suits). And, of course, those who can afford to do so can more easily exploit this.
This isn’t accurate. You have to develop your record at the trial court level. The appellate courts don’t “give you enough time to put your case together.” Furthermore, even proof of a biased trial judge isn’t going to get you a new trial unless you can show the judge made legal errors that materially effected the outcome.
Trump has been doubling down since he stole that first lollipop at 4 years old. I don’t recall him ever conceding anything in the lead up and presidency, I don’t see why he’d start now.