General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAppeals court rules Democrats lack legal standing to sue Trump over alleged emoluments violations
JFC.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-appeals-court-dismisses-trump-emoluments-case-n1132441?fbclid=IwAR1Nkw6LDTvdtItc4R3pJL3u_h8fQapQWQ-wH07yYzrstCy-BbabYlfXB1c
Appeals court rules Democrats lack legal standing to sue Trump over alleged emoluments violations
The suit, which was dismissed on technical grounds, argued the president has violated the Constitution with his businesses, including a hotel popular with foreign officials.
Appeals court: Members of Congress lack legal standing for Trump emoluments suit
Feb. 7, 202001:47
Feb. 7, 2020, 10:51 AM EST
By Dareh Gregorian
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 the lawsuit against the president for violating the clause, which bars federal officials from collecting payments from foreign governments without the approval of Congress.
In their unsigned ruling, the judges cited Supreme Court precedent, noting the 215 lawmakers on the lawsuit are not the majority of Congress, and that they might have had standing if they had filed the suit as a majority. "[O]nly an institution can assert an institutional injury," the ruling 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 case 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.
Efilroft Sul
(3,584 posts)What a crap ruling.
rockfordfile
(8,708 posts)Efilroft Sul
(3,584 posts)EndlessWire
(6,573 posts)Mme. Defarge
(8,055 posts)talking myself down after reading this.
babylonsister
(171,102 posts)D_Master81
(1,822 posts)The remedy is impeachment?
brooklynite
(94,803 posts)The Court ruled (unanimously) that House and Senate members AS INDIVIDUALS did not have standing to sue; the House AS AN INSTITUTION could.
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)who ruled only on standing, not on the merits
ThoughtCriminal
(14,050 posts)Makes. No. Sense.
Everyone, anyone, should have standing.
This case should be a slam dunk. Idiots. I don't care who appointed them.
onenote
(42,793 posts)Probably not.
The reasoning in this case is pretty much the same as in the birther suits. It was correct there, and it is correct here.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,050 posts)they completely lacked merit. President Obama was a citizen. Period - case closed. They should have been dismissed on those grounds.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)we are going to see more and more of this. The lasting damage he has done to our country is extensive. It depresses me just to think of it.