Posted on 02/07/2020 7:43:42 AM PST by rdl6989
“You have to admit, our founders were BRILLIANT”
Yep, they could foresee all this..and without the internet or cell phones.
The congresscritters said “don’t you know who I am” and the judges said “yes, yes we do”.
Yeah. And in THIS case, “runaway President” means he’s bashing their skulls in daily politically, with his judicial appointments, regulatory cuts, tariffs, trade deals, and foreign policy maneuvers. Pretty much the Democrat idea of a “runaway President” is a President who’s busy every day making myriad positive changes that benefit this country and its citizens both at home and around the globe.
THANKS!
Who has standing is a good question. State and local government do not according to this decision. Please note that the Emoluments Clause has no implementing statute that might define who may sue and what consequences might result. Compare to the Impeachment Clause that is self-implementing. Treason is more tightly defined in the Constitution than emoluments.
And speaking of breeches, there's been a lot of soiling of breeches on the Democrat side of the aisle this week, including Granny Wine Box cr@pping herself at the State Of The Union.
The three-judge DC Circuit Court panel were judges Karen L. Henderson [G.H.W. Bush], David S. Tatel [Rapin Bill Clinton] and Thomas B. Griffith [Dubya].
It does make me wonder though. If Congress can’t sue.. who can?
................................
The court did not say that Congress can’t sue. They just said that Congress does not have standing in this case.
Congress, as just demonstrated in the impeachment, can be emotional, impulsive, petty and malicious. The law protects the Judiciary and the Executive from hostile incursions.
I wonder why the courts take the standing route instead of justiciability.
According to the legal definitions I've come across, "justiciability" falls into four areas: standing, ripeness, mootness, and the "political question doctrine."
There is a usage of the term “justiciable” that is more narrow. Being the sort of case that a court does not decide. Not a question of standing, where the court would hear and decide it if the right parties were present.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario where the President of the United States had U.S. immigration officials granting tourist visas to foreign visitors, but only on the condition that those tourists must stay at hotels owned by the President. Surely that WOULD be a case where plaintiffs have all the standing they need to seek a legal remedy in the Federal courts.
I might be conflating judiciable with political question. Ultimately an academic point with respect to Trump. Maybe some other POTUS comes along and really does violate emouluments, and we’ll be glad it isn’t a political question. I do struggle with the remedy though. Disgorgement, I suppose.
Standing isn't changed by the size or obviousness of the offense. Standing has to do with the relationship between the parties. This same group of plaintiff's would not have standing in your hypothetical case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.