Page 166 of 166 FirstFirst ... 66116156161162163164165166
Results 3,301 to 3,313 of 3313

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #3301
    well then why didn't they rule sooner?

  2. #3302
    Can't charge him in office. Can't charge him out of office.

  3. #3303
    Seriously, is that the reasoning?

    That seems Fd up.
    I love mankind...its people I cant stand!!

  4. #3304
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    HB, CA
    This is exactly why Dems need to get a bigger majority (DC/PR statehood- 22 election) and expand the Supreme Court to 15.

  5. #3305
    So glad more than half the Supreme Court is not fit to serve on it.

  6. #3306
    Quote Originally Posted by deaconson View Post
    So glad more than half the Supreme Court is not fit to serve on it.
    And just think, they're only getting started. Lots more decisions coming on abortion rights, minority rights, affirmative action, voting rights and gerrymandering, separation of church-and-state issues, gay rights, the ability of government to regulate and monitor corporations, and all the rest. Whoopee!

  7. #3307
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeForestRanger View Post
    It's truly remarkable how easily people can be worked into a lather by misleading tweets when it comes to SCOTUS decisions.

    These cases are moot because the only relief the plaintiffs sought was prospective relief--i.e., an injunction precluding Trump from competing with them. Once Biden was inaugurated, Trump was no longer even arguably violating the emoluments clause, so the cases were moot. It's so open and shut, the plaintiffs conceded that their case was moot upon Biden's inauguration.

    Further, and dispelling the notion that this is all part of some conservative ploy to protect Trump, no justices dissented from the ruling. For those of you keeping score at home, that means that Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan agreed the case was moot.

    Knee-jerk reactions to basic decisions like these do nothing more than undermine the legitimacy of the SCOTUS. Maybe that's what people are trying to do, but it's dangerous. We need to try to de-politicize the courts, not bring the rancor and partisanship that permeates the legislative and executive branches into them.

  8. #3308
    Scooter Banks

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Right here
    This is like the one time Junebug has it right (but they did not need to vacate the lower court decisions).
    Last edited by Shooshmoo; Yesterday at 11:20 AM.

  9. #3309
    So the slowness of the court system means it is not useful to enforce the emoluments clause in one presidential term, apparently

  10. #3310
    Primary OGB Benefactor
    BiffTannen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Hill Valley
    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.

  11. #3311
    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."

  12. #3312
    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.

  13. #3313
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts