Emoluments Clause lawsuit by Congress dismissed by DC Appeals court

[dukkha]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/app...iness-payments

federal appeals court on Friday unanimously ruled that more than 200 Democratic congressional lawmakers do not have standing to sue President Trump over allegations he violated the Emoluments Clause over foreign payments to his businesses.

“Because we conclude that the Members lack standing, we reverse the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss their complaint,” the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in its ruling.



“The [House] Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit,” the court continued. “But we will not – indeed we cannot – participate in this debate.”

The court added that “the Constitution permits the Judiciary to speak only in the context of an Article III case or controversy and this lawsuit presents neither.”

Holding up a copy of the ruling as he departed Washington for a North Carolina event, Trump blasted the suit as a "phony" case.

[dukkha]

more winning. Trump's triumphant week!

[Grokmaster]

TREASON-O-CRATS PIMP-SLAPPED.....AGAIN!!!

[Celticguy]

Its sad to see the opposition render itself irrelevant.

[canceled.2021.3]

Damn I put my list out too soon, need to add it

[Earl]

I posted this earlier.

Thanks for keeping it current.

Bottom line...the fanatics in the radical Democrat Socialist party lose...again.

[archives]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/app...iness-payments

federal appeals court on Friday unanimously ruled that more than 200 Democratic congressional lawmakers do not have standing to sue President Trump over allegations he violated the Emoluments Clause over foreign payments to his businesses.

“Because we conclude that the Members lack standing, we reverse the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss their complaint,” the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in its ruling.



“The [House] Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit,” the court continued. “But we will not – indeed we cannot – participate in this debate.”

The court added that “the Constitution permits the Judiciary to speak only in the context of an Article III case or controversy and this lawsuit presents neither.”

Holding up a copy of the ruling as he departed Washington for a North Carolina event, Trump blasted the suit as a "phony" case.

Don't get too giddy, it was one of the weaker cases, even had a split decision coming out of the lower Court, there are plenty others dealing with simlair circumstances in the Courts, New York's being the big threat to Donny

[Nordberg]

The courts said the complainants did not have standing. Trump was not called innocent. This is no victory.

[jimmymccready]

The dismissal will be appealed.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Wow it's great to be judged by your own appointees

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Who could have standing in an emoluments clause case? Are the judges saying that there parts of the constitution that can be violated in which no possible party has standing?

[Grokmaster]

Don't get too giddy, it was one of the weaker cases, even had a split decision coming out of the lower Court, there are plenty others dealing with simlair circumstances in the Courts, New York's being the big threat to Donny

YOU AND YOURS GOT YOU COLLECTIVE ASS HANDED TO YOU...AGAIN....

[Stretch]

more winning. Trump's triumphant week!

Dims are Wile E Coyote AGAINNNNNNNNNNN!

[USFREEDOM911]

304 to 227 / Electoral Collage = WINNING

51 to 49 / No Witnesses = WINNING

52 to 48 Article 1 = WINNING

53 to 47 Article 2 = WINNING

Acquittal = WINNING

Emoluments Clause lawsuit dismissed = WINNING

Gee, I wonder what's next.

[dukkha]

Who could have standing in an emoluments clause case? Are the judges saying that there parts of the constitution that can be violated in which no possible party has standing?

I think the ruling is Congress has to deal with it (like impeachment) the courts won't get into it..( i think)