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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Supreme Court dismisses emolument cases against Trump [View all]SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)40. I agree with Walter Schaub. This ruling is insane.
Former Office of Government Ethics chief Walter Shaub blasted the court's decision as "insane" in a tweet, arguing the emolument cases were not moot, as the court said.
" (Trump) still has the money. When any other federal employee violates the emoluments clause they have to forfeit the money," Shaub wrote.
" (Trump) still has the money. When any other federal employee violates the emoluments clause they have to forfeit the money," Shaub wrote.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
91 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This gives more reasons for future presidents to delay in court as much as possible.
Claustrum
Jan 2021
#2
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
"The order was issued without comment or dissent." damn, we do not even get an
riversedge
Jan 2021
#7
Horrendous, stupid decision. Why not just tell all future Presidents to loot the government at will?
Squinch
Jan 2021
#11
Reich wing asses will do anything and everything to promote reich wing politicians.
lark
Jan 2021
#19
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
What was so pernicious is they vacated the lower court rulings finding emolument clause violations.
SunSeeker
Jan 2021
#35
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
Both complaints seek injunctive as well as declaratory relief. How is the dec relief moot?
SunSeeker
Jan 2021
#70
The Supreme Court had no problem with "speculative" relief just 2 months ago.
SunSeeker
Jan 2021
#76
You are mistaken. The cases below had never reached the merits of the complaint
onenote
Jan 2021
#63
Because the cases were moot. They sought to enjoin Trump from violating the emoluments clause
onenote
Jan 2021
#72
Those Judas' Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will now get their 30 pieces of sliver from tRump.
amb123
Jan 2021
#25
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
But SCOTUS took the unusual step of wiping out the lower court rulings finding a violation. Why?
SunSeeker
Jan 2021
#45
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
repubs stacking the courts with corrupt partisan judges seems to have helped.
canuckledragger
Jan 2021
#44
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
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