• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court's discount's emoluments clause against Trump.

L

Linuxcooldude

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
11,053
Reaction score
4,324
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
www.cnn.com

Supreme Court dismisses emoluments cases against Trump

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a case concerning whether former President Donald Trump violated provisions of the Constitution that bar a president from profiting from a foreign government.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Supreme Court orders lower courts to wipe away opinions on Trump's supposed violation on the emoluments clause. Nice to see these stupid lawsuits finally dismissed on TDS on Trump.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
www.cnn.com

Supreme Court dismisses emoluments cases against Trump

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a case concerning whether former President Donald Trump violated provisions of the Constitution that bar a president from profiting from a foreign government.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Supreme Court orders lower courts to wipe away opinions on Trump's supposed violation on the emoluments clause. Nice to see these stupid lawsuits finally dismissed on TDS on Trump.
Click to expand...

They were thrown out because of mootness; not because of the merits. I seem to recall republicans being annoyed with cases being thrown out due to procedure rather than merit.
 
Cardinal said:
They were thrown out because of mootness; not because of the merits. I seem to recall republicans being annoyed with cases being thrown out due to procedure rather than merit.
Click to expand...

But the lawsuit against Clinton was allowed to go on in the Paula case when he was still President. More to it then that.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Irrelevant to the discussion and deflecting to avoid a point I just made.
Click to expand...

Please stay on topic: the historical methods for making papyrus scrolls.
 
The title is too stupid. If one makes "court" a possessive, why make "discount" a possessive?

It's maddening.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
But the lawsuit against Clinton was allowed to go on in the Paula case when he was still President. More to it then that.
Click to expand...
Apples/oranges

That wasn't an emoluments clause lawsuit.
 
I speculate that this is not the last word...........
 
poweRob said:
Apples/oranges

That wasn't an emoluments clause lawsuit.
Click to expand...

That we already know. However, lawsuits on current or former President's not withstanding, they not only wouldn't rule on it, told the lower courts to drop it as well.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
That we already know. However, lawsuits on current or former President's not withstanding, they not only wouldn't rule on it, told the lower courts to drop it as well.
Click to expand...
So you knew you were making an irrelevant comparison. Cool.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
That we already know. However, lawsuits on current or former President's not withstanding, they not only wouldn't rule on it, told the lower courts to drop it as well.
Click to expand...
Which part don't you understand? What a claim for violation of the emoluments clause is, or a lawsuit by a private citizen for damage allegedly done to them by someone who happened to be the president? Your desperate attempt to play this off as proof that Trump did not violate the emoluments clause proves at a minimum you don't understand what that claim means. And what the remedies are.
 
poweRob said:
So you knew you were making an irrelevant comparison. Cool.
Click to expand...

There is a comparison, not nessicarilly with the lawsuits themselves, but the fact a President can be sued during or after he was in office.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
There is a comparison, not nessicarilly with the lawsuits themselves, but the fact a President can be sued during or after he was in office.
Click to expand...
No. And your initial post that you claimed these were dismissed as TDS on Trump proving you thought they were were dismissed on the merits versus "moot" because the clock ran out when he left office. And no, that was not remotely a decent comparison. One claim is based upon conduct in their role as president that can only be pursued while president. The other is conduct by someone who just happens to be president and can be pursued anytime within the statute of limitation.

In short, you are 0/2. Don't try to go 0/3.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
www.cnn.com

Supreme Court dismisses emoluments cases against Trump

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a case concerning whether former President Donald Trump violated provisions of the Constitution that bar a president from profiting from a foreign government.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Supreme Court orders lower courts to wipe away opinions on Trump's supposed violation on the emoluments clause. Nice to see these stupid lawsuits finally dismissed on TDS on Trump.
Click to expand...
It's funny to watch the left claim that Trump profited off the presidency when, in fact, Trump has taken a hit due to his presidency. Hard to prove he benefitted when the facts show he actually lost money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom