Supreme Court declines to hear Democrats' emoluments case against Trump

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up a case by 29 Senate Democrats who alleged that President Trump violated the Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which prohibits self-dealing by federal officeholders.

The lawmakers had asked the court to review a February ruling by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that the senators lacked the legal right to sue the president.

In their brief, the lawmakers had argued that Trump's continued ownership of companies engaged in business with foreign governments amounted to accepting "unauthorized financial benefits from foreign states" in violation of the constitutional restriction.

The court's denial means that Democrats' petition failed to garner support from at least four justices. It also leaves in place the lower court ruling.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-democrats-emoluments-case-against-trump/ar-BB19YPBO?li=BBnbfcL

[no_hypocrisy]

1. OK, then *WHO* has the legal standing to bring up this matter?

[GB_RN]

8. My Guess Is...

According to this article on HuffPost, “federal legislators generally lack standing to sue to enforce the asserted institutional interests of Congress.” Based on the information at hand, I think what they're saying is that only Wild Bill DisBarr (or the Department of Justice in general) has legal standing.

The argument makes no fucking sense to me, but I'm no lawyer, either. Perhaps the House Attorney would have to pursue the case on behalf of the entire House for it to stick? Otherwise, I'm left with my original hypothesis of the DoJ and Bilious Bill Barr.

[brush]

2. Of course they did. This is what Senator Sheldon Whitehouse...

just explained in the judicial committee hearing on Barrett's nomination being moved to the Senate floor.

Such corruption. We're loosing our democracy if this keeps up. Moscow Mitch has corrupted the whole federal court system.

[Srkdqltr]

3. His explanation was right on. We all know that the fix is in.

He explained it very well. I'm sure the nominee does not care she will be hugely compensated. What a shame.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. So...no consequences?

[bucolic_frolic]

5. If the Supreme Court won't defend the Constitution, who will? /nt

[SayItLoud]

6. Win, and pack the court. NT

[maxsolomon]

7. Win, and EXPAND the Court.

They've already been Packed.

[BigmanPigman]

14. Bingo!

[Lonestarblue]

9. Has Congress lost its power to hold any president accountable?

They can’t enforce subpoenas when pa president simply refuses to cooperate. A president can classify any document, even a grocery list, and make it inaccessible to Congress. People working for the president cannot be forced to testify about illegal activities. Congress cannot prevent a president from accepting foreign payments known as emoluments when they are thinly disguised as payments to his businesses. How is it that the Constitution charges Congress with the duty of holding a president aCcountable but they have no power to do so?

[Xipe Totec]

11. Actually, Congress has just realized how little power they've had all along

It took an asshole like Trump to force them to test the limits that, until now, had never been tested because of the sheer human decency of its predecessors.

[FBaggins]

12. That's actually part of the issue

What constitutes “Congress” holding a president accountable?

The unanimous ruling (including at least one Clinton appointee) was that a collection of House/Senate members don’t constitute “Congress” just because they are members.

It would have likely been different if a majority of one or both houses had voted to make the legal challenge.

[C Moon]

10. The Supreme Court has become a tool for the GOP.

[pecosbob]

13. This ruling effectively makes graft legal

The Supreme Court no longer has any credibility. It should be reformed or dissolved by amendment.