Quote:
Originally Posted by Cody69
|
what exactly do you think this proves? that emoluments clause thingy?
you might want to read this from Lusty's post on this nonsense
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
|
the cliff's notes ....
one sentence renders this as just another "we must get Trump" nonsense thread
"But the justices did act on two other petitions filed by the former president, both involving lawsuits alleging that he unconstitutionally took payments from foreign and domestic officials through his businesses."
Emoluments cases
The Supreme Court vacated the lower courts’ decisions in a pair of cases involving allegations that, as president, Trump received benefits from the hotels and restaurants that he owns, in violation of two anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution known as the emoluments clauses. In one case,
Trump v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit allowed a lawsuit by competitors in the hospitality industry to go forward, rejecting Trump’s arguments that the competitors’ alleged injuries did not give them a legal right to sue. Represented by the Department of Justice, Trump filed a petition for review in September, asking the justices to hear oral argument and weigh in on whether the lawsuit could go forward. But by late December, when the petition was first distributed for the justices’ conference in early January, Trump had less than a month remaining in his term as president. In his
reply brief, then-Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued that the justices should wait to act on Trump’s petition until after the inauguration and then vacate the 2nd Circuit’s ruling with instructions to dismiss the case as moot so that it would not serve as precedent for future cases – a move known as
Munsingwear vacatur.
Wall made a similar argument in
Trump v. District of Columbia, in which the District and Maryland also alleged violations of the emoluments clauses. After a federal district court in Maryland allowed the case to go forward, Trump asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit for an order that would require the district court either to allow an immediate appeal or to dismiss the case, but the full 4th Circuit rejected that request. Trump then went to the Supreme Court in early September, but in his
reply brief, filed in late December, Wall again recommended that the justices “hold the petition until it becomes moot after the inauguration, and then grant certiorari and vacate under”
Munsingwear.
The justices agreed to both of Wall’s recommendations on Monday morning, wiping away the appellate courts’ rulings in both cases and instructing the lower courts to dismiss the lawsuits as moot.
CASE ... DISMISSED!!
BAHHAAAA
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy156
Every trump denial is an admission. Every trump accusation is a confession. His whole shtick only works on morons, racists and racist morons.
|
if you say so
Trump Family $$$$$$ Money
