Latest Breaking News

rickyhall

(4,889 posts)

32. So, I guess a president can set up a kiosk or 2 in the lobby of the WH just like in CONgress?

Reply to Botany (Original post)

Mon Jan 25, 2021, 01:31 PM

Jan 2021

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court dismisses emolument cases against Trump [View all] Botany Jan 2021 OP

Does this have something to do with the relief sought by the lawsuit? sboatcar Jan 2021 #1

Yes. The complaint sought prospective relief. onenote Jan 2021 #38

This gives more reasons for future presidents to delay in court as much as possible. Claustrum Jan 2021 #2

If you have money, you win kind of BS. mjvpi Jan 2021 #41

Running for POTUS Grimelle Jan 2021 #60

It Won't Take 4 Years modrepub Jan 2021 #3

This is true. Like clock work. You can bet big big money on it. IsItJustMe Jan 2021 #36

So, trumps strategy worked--break the law--Delay law suits till out office--and then riversedge Jan 2021 #4

Though it seems unrealistic anymore, the correct solution is probably impeachment ToxMarz Jan 2021 #13

No Party will ever hold 67 seats again Polybius Jan 2021 #26

That was my thought. What would the lawsuit ask as relief? nt reACTIONary Jan 2021 #52

Wait - You can't charge me with bank embezzlement because I did that LogicFirst Jan 2021 #5

+1. Trump University School of Law dalton99a Jan 2021 #8

Spot On! rickmoen Jan 2021 #29

Embezzlement analogy kst Jan 2021 #33

what about the hotels from which he stole business dsc Jan 2021 #42

Wow, this doesn't seem to make sense. You can't indict a sitting president, but Mike 03 Jan 2021 #6

This was a lawsuit, not a criminal charge... reACTIONary Jan 2021 #53

"The order was issued without comment or dissent." damn, we do not even get an riversedge Jan 2021 #7

The Sandra Day O'Connor College of legal knowledge .... CYA Botany Jan 2021 #14

Seriously? ananda Jan 2021 #9

That's straightforward enough FBaggins Jan 2021 #56

Cool! Hey Joe, start collecting gifts tavernier Jan 2021 #10

Horrendous, stupid decision. Why not just tell all future Presidents to loot the government at will? Squinch Jan 2021 #11

Shutter the court and go home. They abdicated their bullimiami Jan 2021 #12

In practical terms, the SCOTUS decision has only one implication: beastie boy Jan 2021 #15

And crime pays when you're politically connected. Even a grifter like T---- ffr Jan 2021 #16

The emoluments and tax return rules need to be specified more clearly. Frustratedlady Jan 2021 #17

That will happen just as soon as the next grifter KPN Jan 2021 #18

Reich wing asses will do anything and everything to promote reich wing politicians. lark Jan 2021 #19

There's a Supreme Court Crisis in our Land bucolic_frolic Jan 2021 #20

The Supreme Court and other fed. courts are the right's firewall against the change in .... Botany Jan 2021 #21

Its time to increase the size of the suprem court. Its too corrupt, full of GOP members! Mr. Sparkle Jan 2021 #22

13 is my magic number. mjvpi Jan 2021 #51

The Court RobinA Jan 2021 #23

What was so pernicious is they vacated the lower court rulings finding emolument clause violations. SunSeeker Jan 2021 #35

That's exactly my thought. mjvpi Jan 2021 #49

According to Walter Shaub, other fed officials would have had to turn over the money. SunSeeker Jan 2021 #50

Federal officials would have to forfeit a foreign gift under 5 USC 7342. But that isn't this case. onenote Jan 2021 #64

Didn't plaintiffs claim money damages? Got a link to their Complaint? nt SunSeeker Jan 2021 #68

Here you go. onenote Jan 2021 #69

Both complaints seek injunctive as well as declaratory relief. How is the dec relief moot? SunSeeker Jan 2021 #70

The principles you rely on aren't ones I learned in law school. onenote Jan 2021 #75

The Supreme Court had no problem with "speculative" relief just 2 months ago. SunSeeker Jan 2021 #76

Wasn't the lower court ruling stayed? FBaggins Jan 2021 #58

You are mistaken. The cases below had never reached the merits of the complaint onenote Jan 2021 #63

Then why did SCOTUS vacate those rulings? That is not normally done. SunSeeker Jan 2021 #71

Because the cases were moot. They sought to enjoin Trump from violating the emoluments clause onenote Jan 2021 #72

The cases weren't moot when the lower court rulings were made. SunSeeker Jan 2021 #86

Catch-22 Nitram Jan 2021 #24

Those Judas' Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will now get their 30 pieces of sliver from tRump. amb123 Jan 2021 #25

This sucks EndlessWire Jan 2021 #27

What was the vote breakdown? Polybius Jan 2021 #28

Someone remind me when we were great? Traildogbob Jan 2021 #30

Let's face it. From here on out, CrispyQ Jan 2021 #31

This case is like Herpes RANDYWILDMAN Jan 2021 #34

So, I guess a president can set up a kiosk or 2 in the lobby of the WH just like in CONgress? rickyhall Jan 2021 #32

Not only the President DENVERPOPS Jan 2021 #55

Not only the President DENVERPOPS Jan 2021 #57

Oh... okay. Never mind! n/t Harker Jan 2021 #37

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear. elleng Jan 2021 #39

But SCOTUS took the unusual step of wiping out the lower court rulings finding a violation. Why? SunSeeker Jan 2021 #45

Neither of the lower court cases found a violation. onenote Jan 2021 #79

Even if they just established standing rules for alleging a violation, why vacate them? SunSeeker Jan 2021 #80

Because with the underlying controversy mooted, they were just advisory opinions onenote Jan 2021 #81

They weren't advisory opinions; the cases were indisputably not moot at the time of those rulings. SunSeeker Jan 2021 #83

Munsingwear. onenote Jan 2021 #85

I agree with Walter Schaub. This ruling is insane. SunSeeker Jan 2021 #40

Damn it! Nt LittleGirl Jan 2021 #46

Schaub is mistaken. onenote Jan 2021 #67

Schaub is not mistsken. It is an insane ruling. SunSeeker Jan 2021 #89

Weird! What the hell are they thinking?!--or smoking! C Moon Jan 2021 #43

repubs stacking the courts with corrupt partisan judges seems to have helped. canuckledragger Jan 2021 #44

There weren't any reported dissents FBaggins Jan 2021 #66

I wonder if it means the impeachment trial is also moot cause he is no longer in office AlexSFCA Jan 2021 #47

So can the GOP's Supreme Court explain to us the purpose of the Constitution?... C Moon Jan 2021 #48

in wrestling, they calll this the "heel turn" DonCoquixote Jan 2021 #54

The case against the murderer is moot... Griefbird Jan 2021 #59

If you want to blame someone, blame hundreds of years of Congress. CaptainTruth Jan 2021 #61

Or just the most recent Congress FBaggins Jan 2021 #65

So the SC says Joe should start sending republicans to Guantanamo? Jakes Progress Jan 2021 #62

The SCOTUS 6 are politicians in black robes, masquerading as "justices." badboy67 Jan 2021 #74

"Supreme Collusion" badboy67 Jan 2021 #73

So Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer colluded with the Republicans? onenote Jan 2021 #78

No, they didn't collude. But they are not infallible. SunSeeker Jan 2021 #82

I think Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor went along with this decision because they felt it was correct onenote Jan 2021 #84

There may have been some horsetrading/lobbying going on between the justices. SunSeeker Jan 2021 #87

Expand SCOTUS to 15 Justices. nt oasis Jan 2021 #77

Precendent warrants expanding it to at least 13 Justices. SunSeeker Jan 2021 #88

I'm good with that number. nt oasis Jan 2021 #90

So the SCOTUS decided the statue of limitations is the POTUS term? apnu Jan 2021 #91