Supreme Court dismisses emolument cases against trump because he is out of office. This is quite

[still_one]

a disappointment because it gives free reign for conflicts of interest and abuse of the office of the president

I wonder if they will use the same logic when trump’s lawyers argue you cannot try a president in the Senate on an impeachment who is no longer in office


https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html

[Laelth]

1. That's very disappointing. n/t

-Laelth

[Walleye]

2. Sounds like a super catch 22

[Irish_Dem]

16. A president now has the right to grift big time. nt

[soothsayer]

3. Boo!

[Irish_Dem]

4. So he is above the law.

Cannot get him while in office or out.

[Botany]

7. This pisses me too but Trump is really screwed as per his finaces

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017635655

[lagomorph777]

5. Beyond disappointing; this is a kick in the face for the rule of law.

SCROTUS has just earned themselves a bunch of new colleagues on the bench.

Squeeze up nice and snuggly there, folks! Four new justices will need some room.

[Snackshack]

6. So basically

Since the bank robber got away there’s no reason for justice to continue...

CJ Roberts will occupy a spot right next to Taney in the history book of the Supreme Court.

[Botany]

12. Trump is still in deep shit ... Last Friday was not a good day for him

Trump's tax attorneys all quit.

Trump's personal attorney has been talking to the DA.

The last bank in your home state tells you to piss off.

Nancy P after being asked if she can send the impeachment papers over in the middle of the next month tells Mitch McConnell, "How about next Monday?"

And Joe Biden has fired a kill shot. He wants to know about the Russian cyber attack in 2020 and why did Trump fire 2 directors of cyber security for America before and during the Russian hack? Btw when did Trump talk to Putin and about what?

[UpInArms]

13. Well, the robber is no longer in the bank

So ...

No prosecutable crime

[StarfishSaver]

34. It's not as bad as that.

The Emoluments Clause cases were longshots from the beginning - among other things, there was no guidance or precedent for what to do about a violation even if one was found.

He's still in plenty of hot water - the Emoluments Clause violation was the least of his problems. And it's still possible for that issue to be raised in other cases. It's just that for some reason - probably procedural - the Court decided that this particular case was no longer viable.

I'm as upset as anyone about this. But it's not the end of the world.

[uponit7771]

44. Is the supreme Court indicating the only remedy for presidential violations is being kicked out of..

... office?

Another remedy is he gives all the money back we have no idea how much he gained in office due to him being in office from places he wasn't supposed to get it from.

This ruling seems out of sorts seeing they controlled part of the scheduling before he left office.

This is horrible

[StarfishSaver]

52. No.

The plaintiffs only sought injunctive relief and that relief was completely connected to his being in office. Now that he's out of office, that relief is no longer available.

I don't think it's horrible. What would have been horrible is if the Court had ruled that the Emoluments Clauses didn't apply to Trump or that he had not violated them. But they simply ruled that this particular case was no longer viable. That doesn't mean he can't be sued for violations in other ways.

I really don't think this is a big deal.

[uponit7771]

54. Thx, I saw your well reasoned OP. I do think its bad because if they hear a future case right ...

... away for another president instead of holding out until whatever schedule for whatever reason it then it looks partisan or favoring.

The SC schedule were part of the reasoning Red Don was allowed to leave office before the case was heard, my understanding is they have pretty much near carte blanche to hear things quick fast or slow.

[StarfishSaver]

55. They probably could have moved faster but this case would never have been resolved during his term

This appeal the Supreme Court was hearing wasn't on the merits of the case. It was purely a jurisdictional question. Even if the Court had expedited a ruling on it, the case would have just gone back for further proceedings and trial. It would still have dragged out for years.

[uponit7771]

56. Thx !!!

[Liberal In Texas]

8. Wait a minute. Wasn't the case filed before he was out of office?

If so, I would think it would still have to be adjudicated. But with this court, who knows.

[still_one]

15. The SC used the criteria not when it was filed, but whether he is currently in office of not

It is a very flawed decision in my view, and seems to indicate that the SC is saying the president is above the law

[C_U_L8R]

9. So, that drunk driver

can sell his car and, because he's no longer a driver, he walks free?

[msfiddlestix]

10. So SCOTUS strategy was to wait out Trump's reign of Terror in the WH to then deny Accountability

and the Constitutional remedy to seek redress and essentially invalidate the Emoluments Clause?

First they determine that Corporations are People based on their theory of what the constitution defines as people or persons, and now they're just saying eff the emoluments clause, it's completely meaningless.

Alrighty then. I could have sworn I heard it repeated these past three weeks, that our institutions held.

must have been talking about a different country.

[Turin_C3PO]

33. The judiciary and other institutions have held.

That doesn’t mean there won’t be plenty of terrible decisions in the future just as there has been throughout our history.

[uponit7771]

45. On this account they have not held at all this is a total failure

Like airline pilots the court systems don't have a lot of room for error

[Turin_C3PO]

59. We're definitely not in a good place

but it was largely the judicial branch that prevented Trump from stealing the election. Even the cases that went before Trump judges were laughed at. That doesn’t mean our Democracy isn’t in a fragile state. It definitely is. But so far we’re hanging on. We need to stay vigilant and make sure in 2022 that Dems keep the House and Senate and that we make gains in the state houses and local elections. It must be an all-hands-on-deck effort by all defenders of democracy.

[uponit7771]

61. I'll retract my claim because of StarFish's post (link) but I think on its face it wasn't good for

... the SC to be involved with the timing on this because any quick decided case against Biden is going to look partisan at least.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15003075

[msfiddlestix]

57. This decision in the context of now, cannot be dismissed as merely terrible in my mind.

it is beyond corrupt, but I don't have the word describe. This decision is a reflection of what brought us where we are.

Dare we say it out loud? I think it's past time.

[StarfishSaver]

58. No.

The dismissal is not a big deal. It's one case that was asking for relief that is no longer available.

The corrupt move would have been to use this case as an excuse to absolve Trump from all liability in every case anyone might bring. They didn't do that and there are other opportunities for people to go after him for violating the Emoluments Clause.

[msfiddlestix]

60. Thank you for enlightening me..

it appears I misunderstood the full breath of this decision.

good to know.

[StarfishSaver]

62. I misunderstood it at first, too

At first blush, it looks awful - and we have every reason for distrust.

[msfiddlestix]

71. Wait. I just read on AP twitter feed, that SCOTUS dismissed ALL emoluments cases against Trump

in one fell swoop. So it isn't just the ONE case.

So, now I'm torn between admitting I'm not clear on what the facts are, and being outraged feeling like I'm quite clear that my initial reaction was rational and justified.

One thing is crystal clear, the damage done to every.sngle.thing, will take decades to repair.

My empathy and sympathy for Biden and his administration remains strong as they endeavor to work as hard as humanly possible to do what they are trying mightily to accomplish. But I do fear the breath of wreckage and carnage is quite possibly beyond what we imagined, as informed as we are.

But accountability through the Judicial system shouldn't be that hard.

[StarfishSaver]

73. The Court dismissed two cases

The second was dismissed after I wrote my OP.

They were both dismissed for the reasons I noted: they were seeking injunctive and declaratory relief that no longer applies because Trump isn't president any more and is no longer violating the Emoluments Clauses so there's nothing for the Court to do.

You're right that Trump has done tremendous damage that will take who knows how long to repair. But these dismissals aren't among them.

[bluestarone]

11. ALL preplanned (what a joke)

The SC. is a piece left over from the RUMP SCUM POND!!

[BComplex]

28. This is truly the scum pond that was put in place by REPUBLICANS, rushing through

supreme court appointments. Just think about how much damage just those 3 justices can do that mitch mcconnell and lindsay graham got on the court.

This is on republicans. Every fucking one of them.

[bdamomma]

36. all a

premeditated plan to protect the POS tRump.

I hope SDNY gets tRump and also Georgia.

Bastard not paying for his crimes, f that.

[unblock]

14. This is bizarre and inexcusable

It would make sense if the only consequence would be an injunction against Donnie continuing to profit from an office he no longer holds.

But surely the prohibition regarding emoluments allows for the government to demand the return of money donnie took in violation of the constitution while he was president.

The passage of time should in no way make his unconstitutional grift legitimate.

[still_one]

19. It is a terrible decision because it allows the same behavior for future administrations

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html

They wouldn't even hear the case

[uponit7771]

47. And now if they hear any cases for future administrations they are playing politics

This decision is stupid in all kinds of ways

[marble falls]

17. Ally, ally in free!

[Firestorm49]

18. This is absurd. He either violated the clause, or he didn't. He should be held accountable

if we are to believe that we are a nation of laws for everybody - including a President.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. So, they've just erased a part of our Constitution. An SC with dictatorial powers was a bad idea.

[StarfishSaver]

21. If he still has the money he stole while in office it's not moot

This is bs

[still_one]

23. They are not even bothering to hear the case. Isn't that a dereliction of duty?

[StarfishSaver]

26. I think so, but I haven't read it yet

The only way I can see this is possible is if the case requested narrow injunctive relief that can no longer be granted.

Otherwise, it makes no sense that a case of this importance would be rendered moot simply because a president is no longer in office. The fact that he's out of office could certainly affect the penalty/ramifications but it does not render moot the need to determine whether he violated the Constitution.

But, as I said, I haven't read it yet, so I don't know for sure. And it's possible the order doesn't explain it and we'll never know.

[still_one]

31. Thanks

[StarfishSaver]

32. It looks like the Court didn't issue an opinion. Just ordered the lower court to dismiss as moot

without explanation.

It's possible that the nature of the case rendered it moot because of how it was pled and what was requested. But I can't tell.

If that is the case, perhaps someone else who suffered a harm can sue him. But the Court really punted today.

[onenote]

38. The complaint sought injunctive relief. So it became moot when he was out of office

and the emollients clause no longer applied.

[StarfishSaver]

41. Exactly

I just wrote an OP on that.

This isn't as bad as it looks.

[Vivienne235729]

22. That's bullshit. If he is protected while in the office of the presidency,

Then he should be held accountable for his wrongdoings after he leaves the office. He is NOT above the law.

[Ligyron]

35. Exactly!

So, lemme get this straight as I'm a mere peon, err...I mean citizen.

A President cannot be prosecuted while in office and now he can't be held to account even when he vacates the office? In what universe does this make any sense?

They need to expand the SCOTUS for sure now.

[Vivienne235729]

37. Yes! I was thinking the same thing that they need to expand SCOTUS now!

These positions of power can no longer be protected from the LAW. We are a country of law and order and that includes the office of the presidency. And EVERY other office, for that matter. NO ONE should be above the law.

[bluestarone]

24. Could the Biden team

Request the SC RECONSIDER?

[panader0]

25. Absolutely sickening.

[gab13by13]

27. So this should make a case,

for being able to indict a sitting president. It lets Trump off the hook but for justice' sake someone needs to make the case to be able to indict a sitting president and take it to the SC and let them explain why not.

[BSdetect]

29. We're back to the days of divine right of kings. Really.

[triron]

39. Thanks to a few rw justices.

[onetexan]

30. this is BS given he's untouchable while he was in office & now out of office the SCOTUS refuses to

hear the case? What kind of justice is that? Future corrupt presidents will seek to do the same, you know it.

[onenote]

40. Entirely predictable, which is why there were no dissents.

The relief sought by the plaintiffs was an injunction to stop Trump from violating the emoluments clause.
Once he was out of office, the emoluments clause no longer applied to him and thus, the complaint, as pled, was moot.

There appear to be a lot of armchair lawyers drawing conclusions about this decision that don't flow from this particular result.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

42. The Supreme Court wiped away four lower court decisions this morning because they have become moot:

RiddanceHat Retweeted

The Supreme Court wiped away four lower court decisions this morning because they have become moot:

•Two decisions regarding Trump's alleged violations of the foreign emoluments clause
•Two decisions regarding COVID-related restrictions on abortion

https://supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012521zor_3f14.pdf

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

43. The justification of Trump being out of office intimates "out of office" is the only remidy ...

... available for violation of the clause and it's not

[jalan48]

46. Too bad it took so long to get to the SCOTUS.

[lame54]

48. They're already working on that

[DeminPennswoods]

49. Perhaps SCOTUS would like Congress to pass

legislation more clearly defining what constitutes an emolument before they take a case on which to rule.

[StarfishSaver]

63. That would be helpful for everyone

The Constitution doesn't give any guidance or any remedy. It's never been an issue before now.

[jmowreader]

50. You do realize...

...if Biden decides to become corrupt (it’s not in his soul to do that, but let’s say he woke up one morning and decided to do that) he could get away with it because the Supremes just announced presidential corruption is perfectly fine.

[StarfishSaver]

53. No, that's not what the Court did at all

The Court simply said, "Plaintiffs, you asked the Court to make Trump stop violating the Emoluments Clause. As of noon on January 20, he stopped violating it, so you don't need us anymore."

[StarfishSaver]

51. I don't think this is bad as it initially seemed

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215003075

[Polybius]

64. Maybe they'll dismiss the Senate impeachment trial too

You never know with them.

[StarfishSaver]

65. They can't do that.

[Polybius]

66. If they find rule that you can't have an impeachment trial for someone out of office they can

There's a challenge to it right now.

[StarfishSaver]

67. Courts don't step in and dismiss an impeachment because they "find a rule"

The case can be dismissed on a motion by a senator during the trial, but since Senator Leahy is presiding and would rule on the motion, it's not likely that will work.

[Polybius]

68. No, I'm talking about this

There is some debate on whether you can impeach and convict someone after they leave office. Most scholars say it's legal, but some question it. It is being challenged now in court by the Trump Team. Here's an article about it.

https://www.vox.com/22242411/trump-impeachment-constitution-senate-trial-conviction-disqualify-william-belknap

Here's an article by a highly respected Judge who says he must still be in office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/12/once-trump-leaves-office-senate-cant-hold-an-impeachment-trial/

[StarfishSaver]

72. I agree that this is an iasue

But I think Luttig is wrong.

He says: "The Constitution itself answers this question clearly: No, he cannot be. Once Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him — even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment."

If that were the case, the Senate could never disqualify a president, one of the only two penalties set out in the Constitution: removal and diaqualication. Removal is mandatory and automatic. Disqualification is discretionary and occurs only If a majority of senators approves it after a conviction.

When a president is convicted, he is immediately removed from office. It's automatic and occurs before the Senate even gets to the issue of disqualification.

That means that when the Senate votes on the issue of disqualification, they are voting to disqualify a former president, not a sitting president. In fact, it is by definition impossible to disqualify a sitting president since that vote must occur after he's convicted and removed.

Using Judge Luttig's reasoning, as soon as the Senate convicts a president, resulting in his removal, they must halt all proceedings against him because he is no longer president. That makes no sense if the Constitution gives them a right to disqualify him after conviction.

I do think there is a serious question about whether a former president can be impeached after he leaves office. But it is unquestionable - both because of the plain language of the Constitution and just plain common sense - that once a sitting president is impeached, Congress retains jurisdiction to try, convict and penalize him.

[Polybius]

78. Hypotactically, let's say Roberts agrees with Luttig

Can he dismiss the case by himself, since he is solely the Judge of the Senate trial? Or would the full Court need to vote?

[StarfishSaver]

79. No.

The Chief Justice is not presiding over the case. Sen. Leahy is.

I know - that wasn't your question.

Whoever is presiding, be it Roberts, Leahy, or anyone else, couldn't dismiss the trial on their own accord. But if a senator filed a motion to dismiss on these grounds, they could grant it. But the ruling could be appealed to the full Senate and they could reverse the ruling by majority vote and continue with the trial.

[BGBD]

69. Correct me if I'm wrong

but I don't think the Supreme Court can even hear anything about an impeachment.

Article 1, Section 2 gives "sole" power to impeach to the House and Section 3 gives "sole" power to convict to the Senate.

In my reading that leaves no room for the SCOTUS to decide that what congress did in an impeachment was unconstitutional. I believe that would be an argument completely up to the members of the House and Senate. If the impeach and convict, it's inherently constitutional.

[StarfishSaver]

74. The court can't rule about whether anything Congress does IN an impeachment is constitutional

But it can rule on whether Congress has the Constitutional right to conduct an impeachment in a particular case.

For example there is no question that Congress had the full right to impeach Donald Trump last year. It was completely up to them how they conducted that impeachment and the courts would not and could not second-guess them.

But if Congress decided it was going to impeach the governor of California, the court could rule that is not within its constitutional power because the Constitution limits Congress' power to impeach to the impeachment of federal officers.

[BGBD]

81. That seems

like it's handled in Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

That passage determines who congress can impeach.

I'm going back to the opinions in Nixon V US. Rehnquist said in his opinion that the court didn't have authority to review an impeachment of a federal office. I'm also looking at the impeachment of Belknap. He resigned but the trial carried on, with the Senate determining whether they had jurisdiction and most senators voting not to convict based on believing they didn't have it. I feel like if SCOTUS could rule Belknap would have appealed to them to make that decision before the Senate could vote, because it was fairly close in the end. Furthermore there is the impeachment of Tennessee Senator Blount who was impeached and the Senate voted that they did not have jurisdiction.

So, it seems to me that it's up to the Senate to decide if there is jurisdiction. I suppose the party could ask the court to intervene after a conviction were made.

Is there a case similar that we could look at on this?

[StarfishSaver]

82. No, that clause does not settle it

It simply says that he president or certain others shall be removed from office upon conviction. It does not address what happens to a former president upon conviction. And, as I've said, the fact that the Constitution permits the Senate to disqualify an impeached person from holding office in the future, and that penalty can only be applied after the impeached person is convicted - and if that impeached person was removed from office by virtue of the conviction - is obvious that the Senate retains its jurisdiction over impeachment even after the subject is no longer in office.

I think this all turns on the fact that Congress initiated the impeachment proceedings while Trump was still in office. The fact that they did means they can continue with the process even after his term has ended.

[BGBD]

83. so we don't

have any actual ruling to go off of though?

I'll defer to you as I typically do on matters of constitutionality.

[StarfishSaver]

84. I don't understand your question

[BGBD]

85. Has

SCOTUS ever issued a ruling on an impeachment conducted by congress?

[StarfishSaver]

86. Not that I'm aware

The Court has ruled that issues arising in an impeachment trial in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable “political question.” But the question of whether the Senate has the right to try a particular class of people - for example, impeached former presidents - is a jurisdictional issue that is not a "political question" because it goes to the very definition of Congress' power.

[lindysalsagal]

70. So you can't prosecute while in office, or even after they leave office? So they have total

unchecked power for life? Excuse me????

[StarfishSaver]

75. Not exactly

The case asked the court to order Trump to stop violating the Emoluments Clause. Because he's no longer in office, he can no longer violate the Emoluments Clause so there's nothing for the court to order him to do. That's why the case has been rendered moot.

There are other ways to go after Trump for violating the emoluments clause, but there are no further avenues for injunctive relief because he's no longer in violation.

[lindysalsagal]

77. Thanks for clarification.

[aidbo]

76. Time to expand the court. I think there's no filibuster for SC justices?

[StarfishSaver]

80. Democrats don't have the votes to expand the Court

Moreover, an expanded court probably wouldn't have made any difference in this case since it doesn't appear that any of the liberal justices had any objection to the dismissal. It was a pretty straightforward order based on the law.

[onenote]

87. There were no dissents recorded to this decision.

At least with respect to this particular ruling, it wouldn't matter how many justices we appointed, assuming they were competent.