It’s like you’re channeling Grover Nordquist from beyond the grave.
1 Like
13, one for each circuit court?
The appeal to tradition might get it through, and make it harder for Republicans to add their own.
19 Likes
Sadly, Grover Norquist still vexes the world on this side of the veil.
3 Likes
I was worried this might happen since a day or so ago- I was reading an article about the Justice dept navigating legal positions left from Trump, and then I saw this:
I immediately did a double take.
So, Biden forgot all about John Yoo, and the torture memos, huh? Either that or someone just tried to roll the entire W legal memory up in the rug.
Its all bullshit. Trump was in direct violation of the federal lease of his dc hotel being a former gov building- explicitly called out in the lease. They let him get away with it when it was cut & dry wrong, and illegal.
The idea that laws don’t matter if enough time passes is bullshit of the highest order. I want to see democrats pack the court now- if this is what counts as Law and Order from conservatives their order means nothing to me.
This is gutless at its core, and the first thing I’ve been upset with since Trump left.
If they don’t spend the next two years explicitly redefining his actions in office in formal ways so they never happen again, then they are dead to me too.
This shit has to stop, or he’ll come back and do it all over again. If not him, the next person.
GROW A SPINE- and stop this bullshit Democrats!
17 Likes
What’s even more absurd is that it wasn’t in the past when the case started, they just managed to drag it out long enough that it was. So maddening.
And that’s assuming it’s not one of those laws that don’t apply to you because you’re president.
Either that or, worse, the sins of the Trump Justice Department were of a different sort altogether. (Not necessarily “worse,” but at least less legally-defensible.)
4 Likes
Not defending this decision and certainly not excusing or defending Trump, but as a serious question, is a violation of emoluments clause actually a crime?
Given SCOTUS didn’t issue any opinion or dissents we don’t know what the vote was or by whom. It could have been 9-0 indicating they felt that Constitutionally, there is no redress possible now that Trump is no longer President - hence rendering the entire case moot. Versus an actual crime where a tangible remedy can be pointed to.
Just looking at this legally and trying to take the political glasses off for a minute.
2 Likes
Dammit! That just ruins my day.
Let’s say Kevin Phillips, then.
DAMMIT! He’s still alive, too! 
It’s clearly forbidden in the Constitution, so I don’t know how one would forbid something like that without it being a crime.
No president has been convicted of emoluments violations but many other government employees have, so it is certainly treated as a crime.
8 Likes
I actually kind of get this. The emoulments clause is meant to regulate the office of the President. The redress against a President who violates their Constitutionally-mandated conditions of office is their impeachment and possible removal. Beyond that, I think the only remedy the Courts could offer is an injunction against those actions. And since he’s no longer the President, the Court has no power to regulate his actions vis-a-vis that office…
That said, if the emoulment-violating activity is also illegal according to Federal law, then the former President could be criminally charged.
(IANAL, especially not a Constitutional one, so take the above analysis with a grain of skepticism)
8 Likes
So… Can’t apply the emoluments clause while he’s in office, and afterwards, it’s too late?
Might as well scratch it off the list then.
12 Likes
So, please correct me if I’m not understanding this, but:
A sitting president cannot be charged with violations or held to account while he(she) is in office. Because. Have to wait until they are out of office.
Once out of office, they cannot be charged or held to account because they are out-of-office so there’s no point any more, and lets just let by-gones be by-gones.
Is that about right? They have effectively ruled that a president is permenently immune and can never be held to account for any crimes or abuses of office committed while in office.
17 Likes
You just stated (more eloquently than I could), exactly what I am thinking. There’s never been much testing of this sort of thing before (never had to before Trump) so not much precedence to go on.
However, SCOTUS punting on this question is the ultimate cowardice.
Some interesting legal details here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11086.pdf
2 Likes
But this charge was brought forth in the first few months of his term in office. It’s outrageous that the prohibited behavior continued for four full years, finally made its way in front of the court and they shrugged it off. It’s bullshit.
11 Likes
Oh yeah, the procedural hurdles are utter hogwash, no doubt. If you have a pliant or timid Congress and an unwilling Court, I guess you’re just up a creek.
2 Likes
I’ll have to research the cases but it’s possible they were too narrow in scope and therefore, SCOTUS was unable to rule on the merits of the violations themselves but rather chose to punt on the issue of standing instead.
I agree it is bullshit
4 Likes
Munsingwear Vacatur sounds like a doom metal band.
Ok SCOTUS, if you are going to play that way, we are going to FIX you.
2 Likes
There’s a quick legal breakdown of the rulings by LegalEagle on youtube.
The gist being they were dismissed because the plaintiffs weren’t asking for damages from Trump, just a ruling preventing him from doing it again. And since he’s now out of office, he de facto can’t do it again, so the case was now moot. The issue could be filed again by the DOJ to seek damages, but that hasn’t happened yet.
26 Likes
Thanks, @Glacian for that lead.
I’ve been digging around the official SCOTUS website and can’t find anything. All my regular searches are news stories reporting on this, but no links to primary documentation.
Does anyone have a link?
I’m not hating on the media, but I’m trying to be better about looking at actual source documents if possible.
This seems like utter bullshit, but I want to know specifically which type before going off.
2 Likes
Just in case you thought the US was going to be immediately unf^&*ed, an example of how the US will remain f^&*ed for generations to come.
2 Likes
It’s OK, he stopped again
6 Likes
