• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

This is like the one time Junebug has it right (but they did not need to vacate the lower court decisions).
 
Last edited:
So the slowness of the court system means it is not useful to enforce the emoluments clause in one presidential term, apparently
 
So plaintiffs possibly lost revenue for four years as Trump violated the emoluments clause but have no recourse due to the filing ? Also, should Trump win in 2024, expect the same set of circumstances.
 
So was this the case in which the plaintiffs were the attorneys general of Maryland and Virginia?

If so the direct monetary losses to the states would be hotel taxes etc. that were not paid in their states because the hotel guests were in Trump's hotel in DC. Also, presumably income taxes on corporate earnings that would have been in their states.

The entities with direct financial losses were those nearby hotels which lost business to the Trump Hotel because it was the "president's hotel."
 
I don't know the ins and outs of these cases, but I do know the plaintiffs did not seek retrospective damages. They only sought prospective relief, which is why they are moot.
 
The "CREW" in the suit is the organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, representing food service workers in Washington. The et al is a person who is compensated based on the value of foreign government event bookings at a competing DC hotel. Others are owners of hotel properties in New York that compete with Trump New York hotels.

CREW may have a hard time showing actual damages. The foreign events booking agent may be able to show direct damages.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

Good. The question is how many vacancies are left. The Senate GOP deliberately stalled and dragged out Obama appointees, so when Trump surprisingly won there were plenty of court vacancies for them to fill. With Trump in office McConnell rammed through a record number of right-wing judges, often in record time, with a number of those appointees being of dubious credibility. I doubt they left many spots open, so Democrats are going to have to hope there's plenty of retirements in the next two years to even come close to the number that the Republicans appointed under Trump.
 
Last edited:
There have been a number of judges to announce retirement since the election.
 
And kavanaugh and barrett are just looking over their shoulders to see who is watching and who will make the next... choice.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

You should unfollow this guy. This isn’t the first time he has led you astray, and his incendiary partisan rhetoric is damaging to the integrity of the SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
deaconson said:
And kavanaugh and barrett are just looking over their shoulders to see who is watching and who will make the next... choice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that’s the thing about lifetime appointments. You don’t have to look over your shoulder.
 
FWIW, here is the current age of the Supreme Court justices:

Barrett 49
Gorsuch 53
Kavanaugh 56
Kagan 60
Sotomayor 66
Roberts 66
Alito 70
Thomas 72
Breyer 82

Not clear if the Dems will hold a majority of the Senate after 2022 (20 Republican and 14 Democratic seats up; 3 Republican incumbents have announced they will not run: Burr (NC), Toomey (PA), Portman (OH)) . Given that Republicans only need to net flip one seat to take control of the Senate, it would be risky to put the confirmation process back in Mitch McConnell's hands. Will be interesting to see how many, if any, SCOTUS vacancies open over the next year and a half. Breyer seems like a lock to step down. Not sure if he will be the only one.
 
Last edited:
Lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court is one of our worst practices. Just look at that list of people and think about how many of them you actually respect. Maybe 3-4? Hell two of them I'd spit in their face if given the chance. When your Supreme Court is that deplorable its not a good sign for your nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top