Posted on 07/10/2019 7:51:32 AM PDT by jazusamo
This is when the President should announce that he is Ordering the IRS to conduct a Full Investigation into wether there are any Democrat Members of Congress Profiting from their Office ion violation of the Emoluments clause.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/182486.P.pdf
The District Court really got slapped down. Not totally obvious, because the slap down lies in the procedure. District Court did everything it could to allow discover to proceed, even going so far as to REFUSE to certify the case for appeal. Well, it was appealed - there is a procedure for that - with Trump seeking a writ of mandamus (darned unusual) directing the lower court (the District Court) to dismiss the case. LOL.
Based on the decisions in this appeal and in appeal No. 18-2488, we remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
Thanks!
I love to see District Courts get hammered when they overstep and that’s been happening far to often.
Hooray!!
Is Pelosi going to ignore this finding too?
Pelosi will fight this if she can say “emoluments” clause”, without stuttering and getting bug eyed.
If not, she will ignore it.
The system encourages overstepping. There is no penalty to the Disctict Court for overstepping, and few people have the finances or even gumption levt-over, after the District Court runs them through the mill. Lawsuits are financially and emotionally draining, and most issues have to wait for the conclusion of trial to even get to appeal. Courts abuse their discretion, and even this is allowed and rarely ground for reversal. Judge for life, and impeachment does not exist, for all practical purposes.
District Court judges are god in their own minds. There is no humility there. None. I bet this judge is PISSED, not chagrined.
Yet, as the President noted, the district court was "the first ever to permit a party to pursue relief under the Emoluments Clauses for alleged competitive injury -- or for any injury for that matter." The district court dismissed this novelty by reciting the general proposition that "numerous cases have found that a firm has constitutional standing to challenge a competitor's entry into the market," providing no citation that would make that proposition applicable to a direct claim under the Constitution, let alone a direct claim under the Emoluments Clauses. In doing so, the court failed to recognize, among other things, that no previous court had enforced the Emoluments Clauses; that no decision had defined what "emoluments" are; that no prior decision had determined that a party can sue directly under the Emoluments Clauses when the constitutional provisions provide no rights and specify no remedies; and that no case had held that a State has standing to sue the President for alleged injury to its proprietary or sovereign interests from a violation of the Emoluments Clauses. One can hardly question that these are "new legal question[s]" of "special consequence." ...In reaching this conclusion, however, we are quick to note that disturbing an exercise of the broad discretion conferred on district courts to determine whether to certify orders for interlocutory appeal should be rare and occur only when a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated.
Lack of standing doesn't mean the House couldn't take the issue up and make impeachment noises in the 2020 election cycle no matter how ridiculous their avenues of attack and how insubstantial the evidence. None of that stopped the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative from becoming "common knowledge" thanks to the endlessly repeated lies and supposition by the "Media" and fellow traveler pundits.
Obama sealed “ALL” of his personal records with his first executive order on his first day in office!
NO EFFING S**T!!!!!!!!!!!! Who doesnt?
Something about hand cream, I think... ;-P
from dictionary.com:
emolument: profit, salary, or fees from office or employment; compensation for services:
Tips are an emolument in addition to wages.
Thanks for posting the opinion. Nice read, District Court got really slapped down.
Next, they’ll try to get him on jaywalking back in 1974.
It’s a win - thank for pinging me...
Found this: Without prejudice is a legal term whose meaning, in essence, is “without injury” or “without loss” to the legal standing of a party to litigation. The courts use “without prejudice” during dismissal of legal proceedings, and parties to litigation often utilise it when negotiating the settlement.
Constitution? What's that?
...dismissed a lawsuit filed by Maryland and D.C... finding that they did not have the standing to sue the president.
Whatever it is, Trump’s guilty of it./s
Liberals will have a stronger case about President Trump’s profits from “renting out” the Lincoln Bedroom to wealthy contributors.
Oh, wait...
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.