Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDivided Federal Appeals Court Allows 'Historic' Emoluments Case Against Trump to Proceed
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals voted Monday not to take it up, according to a court filing. That means the case can continue in a lower court.............
A federal appellate court in New York on Monday said it will not stop litigation claiming that President Donald Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals voted 8-4 not to rehear en banc the courts ruling from last year, which resurrected the emoluments lawsuit after it had been dismissed by a lower court.
Revealing a stark divide among the jurists, all four of the judges who voted in favor of rehearing the case signed on to one of two dissenting opinions.
Circuit Judge Stephen Menashi, a Trump appointee, penned a dissent that was joined by Circuit Judges Richard Sullivan and Debra Ann Livingston, who were appointed by Trump and George W. Bush, respectively. Menashi argued that the courts majority ruling was based on the mere assumption that foreign officials were abandoning plaintiffs establishments in favor of the presidents businesses, which he concluded was not enough to establish standing.
[O]ne might think the court would require the plaintiffs to identify some evidence that at least one official has actually chosen a Trump-located restaurant over one of the plaintiffs restaurants for an emoluments-based reason, Menashi wrote. But the plaintiffs have no such evidence, and the majority opinion does not think it is necessary. Instead, the majority opinion finds the plaintiffs theory of injury so clearly compelling as a matter of economic logic that the court can dispense with the normal requirement that standing be based on a concrete injury rather than a speculative one.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/divided-federal-appeals-court-allows-historic-emoluments-case-against-trump-to-proceed/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/17/politics/trump-emoluments/index.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 692 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Divided Federal Appeals Court Allows 'Historic' Emoluments Case Against Trump to Proceed (Original Post)
kpete
Aug 2020
OP
SheltieLover
(57,073 posts)1. Good!
spanone
(135,846 posts)3. ⭐️⭐️⭐️K&R ⭐️⭐️⭐️
riversedge
(70,245 posts)4. Forward!!!
spicysista
(1,663 posts)5. Yay! This is a BFD!