Appeals court rules Democrats lack legal standing to sue Trump over alleged emoluments violations

  
Via:  1stwarrior  •  2 weeks ago  •  28 comments

Appeals court rules Democrats lack legal standing to sue Trump over alleged emoluments violations

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed Democratic lawmakers' lawsuit against President Donald Trump alleging he has violated the   emoluments clause   of the U.S. Constitution on technical grounds.

In the ruling, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the members of Congress did not have legal standing to bring suit against the president for violating the clause, which bars federal officials from collecting payments from foreign governments without approval of Congress.

In their unsigned ruling, the judges cited Supreme Court precedent, noting the 215 lawmakers on the suit are not the majority of Congress, and that they might have had standing if they had filed suit as a majority. "[O]nly an institution can assert an institutional injury," the ruling says.

"Here, regardless of rigor, our conclusion is straightforward because the members — 29 senators and 186 members of the House of Representatives — do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the president’s acceptance of foreign emoluments," the decision says.

Democratic senators and House members argued the president frequently violates the rule with his businesses, including a Washington, D.C. hotel that's popular with foreign government officials.

The constitutional clause at issue in the lawsuit   reads , "no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

Trump told reporters on the White House lawn that the suit was "another phony case."

"It was a total win," he said.

In their decision, the judges suggested the lawmakers press their case in the court of public opinion.

"The members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the president himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit. But we will not — indeed we cannot — participate in this debate," the judges said.

The decision caps a good week for Trump. On Wednesday, he was   acquitted   on charges of abusing his power and obstruction Congress at his Senate impeachment trial.

Two   other emolument-related cases   are still pending in the courts.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
1stwarrior
1  seeder  1stwarrior    2 weeks ago

And the shyte keeps flowing.

Dems/Libs need to understand that their pollution overflow relief valve is broken and they don't have the expertise to fix it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @1    2 weeks ago

I guess we could say the President has been on a roll this week!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  1stwarrior @1    2 weeks ago

There's got to be some Dems chewing bile on this one!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2  XDm9mm    2 weeks ago
"The members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the president himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit. But we will not — indeed we cannot — participate in this debate," the judges said.

Imagine that.  Judges actually using the law as their guide and not personal vitriol and emotions to create judgments many would consider judicial fiat, or legislating from the bench.

Things most certainly are looking up in America.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  XDm9mm @2    2 weeks ago

Trump turned control of his businesses to his sons before he became President.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2017/01/11/donald-trump-will-hand-over-business/#25c7d46f60d7

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.1  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1    2 weeks ago
Trump turned control of his businesses to his sons before he became President.

Yet he is the SOLE beneficiary of the trust. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
2.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
Yet he is the SOLE beneficiary of the trust. 

I have to ask,  so?  If he had converted everything into a blind trust he would still be the sole beneficiary of the trust so I don't see anything to be an issue based on your comment. I think it's fair to question seeing how it's not a blind trust that even though his son's are 100% responsible Trump still has knowledge of what the business was doing (broad strokes) before he became president so it's understandable to question presidential decisions that might impact his business. And TBH we just have to trust that he and his sons are not talking about what the business is doing and that he is keeping the business and his office separate. But  your comment about him being the sole beneficiary is just empty bitching.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
I have to ask,  so? If he had converted everything into a blind trust he would still be the sole beneficiary of the trust so I don't see anything to be an issue based on your comment.

According to who? 

And TBH we just have to trust that he and his sons are not talking about what the business is doing and that he is keeping the business and his office separate.

WHO actually believes that bullshit? In reality, expressing their cognitive dissonance, most are just pretending it's not happening even though Trump shoves it in their face every time he lands in Florida and charges the Secret Service up to $650 a night for a room.

Those of us on planet Earth are disgusted. 

Oh and BTW, it's utter hypocrisy to even proffering trusting Trump while insisting that it's impossible for Biden not to know about his son's business dealings. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

Seems like the Democrats are having a terrible, no-good, horrible week or two.

Awww.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3    2 weeks ago

They've had a bad 4 years.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
3.1.1  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1    2 weeks ago

Let’s make it 8!  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @3    2 weeks ago
Seems like the Democrats are having a terrible, no-good, horrible week or two. Awww.

Naw....  try a miserable 3 1/2 years.   Try as they might, they've proved unable to bring Trump down, or even severely hurt him.  After every failed attack, his approval ratings just go up.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3    2 weeks ago

Yeah, ain't it cool?

 
 
 
squiggy
4  squiggy    2 weeks ago

84023898_2848072811919025_14605791817745

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

Well, that was productive! What's next on the list of ways we can waste time and money?

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
5.1  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Tacos! @5    2 weeks ago

Just more TDS! 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
5.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tacos! @5    2 weeks ago

Give them time. They'll fabricate something (again).

 
 
 
MrFrost
6  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

"activist judges".

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @6    2 weeks ago

Sounds much more like judges who know the law, can cite the law, and apply the law.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MrFrost @6    2 weeks ago

They didn't acquit Trump of having violated the emoluments clause, they simply ruled that because the Democrats who brought the case were not a majority of the House of representatives (only 215 out of 435), they didn't have standing since they did not fully represent the will of congress.

So Trump is guilty as sin, but these congressmen will need to get the majority on their side. Right now they would need 3 more congressional Democrats to join the suit to proceed so they will likely refile since they do have the majority thus will easily overcome this procedural denial.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2    2 weeks ago
So Trump is guilty as sin, but these congressmen will need to get the majority on their side. 

Prove Trump is guilty. The court didn't say he was.

Right now they would need 3 more congressional Democrats to join the suit to proceed so they will likely refile since they do have the majority thus will easily overcome this procedural denial.

You need to go back and read the article.

Adding three more Democratic Congressmen to the suit won't do squat.

Where do you GET this stuff?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.1    2 weeks ago
Adding three more Democratic Congressmen to the suit won't do squat.

I apologize, that should have said 32 more democrat congressmen. They have 232 democrats in congress, they just need 218 to be a majority and thus overcoming the bar set by the appeals court.

The appeals court merely ruled they "do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the president’s acceptance of foreign emoluments".

So they simply need to constitute a majority of congress and they can move past this procedural denial.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2.2    2 weeks ago
The appeals court merely ruled they "do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the president’s acceptance of foreign emoluments

And I didn't claim anything more than that.

You, however, claimed Trump is guilty.

I'd like to see your proof.

 
 
 
squiggy
6.2.4  squiggy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2.2    2 weeks ago

"...majority of Congress, and that they might have had standing if they had filed suit as a majority..."

Stretch it some more, Doctor.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
6.2.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2    2 weeks ago
they simply ruled that because the Democrats who brought the case were not a majority of the House of representatives (only 215 out of 435), they didn't have standing since they did not fully represent the will of congress.

TRANSLATION:  Democrats TRIED another way to remove him from office AND FAILED AGAIN.  

So Trump is guilty as sin,

Should we wait for your proof or just start blowing you off now?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
6.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @6    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
6.3.1  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.3    2 weeks ago

They do! ❄️❄️❄️❄️

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
6.4  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  MrFrost @6    2 weeks ago

Trump is replacing those as they leave the bench for retirement.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




shona1
Freedom Warrior
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom


43 visitors