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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DENVERPOPS

(8,677 posts)
57. Not only the President
Mon Jan 25, 2021, 03:31 PM
Jan 2021

but all politicians, U.S. Senators, U.S. House Members, State Governors, etc etc etc.

The Supreme Court has just officially notified Foreign Nations, and Uber Rich that U.S. Politicians "are open for business"
and that it is perfectly legal......

I guess we are already back to the “Holy Shit” days of the RepubliCONs and Trump presidency and their actions…..

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
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court dismisses e...»Reply #57