"No matter how much one disapproves of Mr. Trump, or wishes that his presidential ambitions fail, every defendant deserves due process, including recourse to appeal...."

"Seeking appeal should not be effectively impossible, or expensive to the point of imposing vast and irreparable harm, particularly when a defendant has a colorable argument before appellate judges, as Mr. Trump appears to have...."

That's the Editorial Board of The Washington Post.

Even billionaires tend not to have hundreds of millions of dollars in cash on hand. Liquidating properties to free up money cannot happen overnight. Forcing a quick asset offload, even just to pay collateral or fees, can create a fire-sale situation in which sellers get less money than their property is worth. If Ms. James seized his assets, and the appeals court subsequently cut or eliminated Mr. Trump’s penalty, the damage would be irreversible; the price to repurchase prized properties would likely end up higher than what he sold them for, if they were even available.... 

As Post columnist Ruth Marcus points out, New York’s system, in which defendants in civil cases must post bond equal to the judgment against them before appealing that judgment, makes it harder to challenge rulings more likely to be unjust. The larger the penalty, the more likely it is to be excessive — and, yet, the harder to raise the cash. Whatever else this chapter in the Trump legal drama shows, it is that New York should revisit its laws on how much a person or entity must put up pending appeal for a civil judgment."

The commenters over there are — as you would expect — outraged.