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]Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)62. So the SC says Joe should start sending republicans to Guantanamo?
I mean if he orders the military to round up all republican legislators, that would have been an abuse of his powers before now. But the Supreme Court just said he can do that and get away with it. He can't be charged while in office and he can't be charged with abusing powers when he is out of office.
We have some truly venal, dumb fucks in lifetime robes. They don't even pretend to give a damn about law or the constitution.
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