President Donald Trump notched a little-noticed win on Friday in his bid to fight off lawsuits accusing him of violating the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause when a D.C. appeals court suggested that a lower court had erred in denying Trump the opportunity for an early appeal in the case.
This decision isn’t substantive, but could let the Trump regime run out the clock on the emoluments lawsuit.
In any event, it’s increasingly clear that the emoluments clause may literally be so narrowly interpreted as to have no legal import. Trump’s use of his office to take bribes in the form of money laundered via his businesses is the most blatant example of pay to play politics in U.S. history and it seems this isn’t enough for the increasingly right wing judiciary.
The Appeals Court appears to be signaling that it will ultimately rule in Toadglans’ favor so the appeal should be allowed.
Once this country loses the courts as a bulwark against Trumpism, which seems to be happening more and more by the day, we are truly and deeply fucked.
Say hello to the new national flag that you’ll soon be required to honor, with adequate reverence, lest you be sent to a not-a concentration camp.
If the courts fail to protect us, the only remaining option is impeachment. BUT, that should (and will) only occur after investigations and hearings. I do hope the Mueller testimony changes peoples’ minds, as the Democratic leadership in the House seems to rely on public opinion. I’m cautiously optimistic that they will do the right thing in the end.
I’m gathering from all the hub bub that the only means of containing a rogue president is through impeachment or or the electoral process. But the electoral process is corrupted. And the Senate has been captured by right wing extremists. And what if a president won’t step down after being impeached or rejected at the polls? Whether the “founders” wanted it or not, we have, it seems an elected despot, a “king”.
Our system of government is like a coke bottle balanced on it’s mouth. Everything is fine and constitutional crises are avoided so long as there’s no perturbation, as long as no one vibrates the table or floor. If everyone behaves as they should. An unstable equilibrium.
Eventually, after enough perturbations of sufficient magnitude, the bottle will topple into a stable equilibrium, a stable autocracy. Perhaps this is the fate of all democratic republics.
Not to split hairs but he was selected not elected.
D’accord.
Perhaps it will be when a Democratic president tries it.
Which is an academic point for me, because only over my dead body will the Democrats nominate and elect someone as congenitally corrupt as Donald John Trump.
Imagine what other clauses of the constitution could go by the board if courts decide that impeachment and conviction are the only remedies available for an unlawful action by the executive. Start quartering those troops in your spare room, everyone.
It is the fate of people who will tolerate anything so long as they have their TV and their barbecues and their Amazon Prime in Christmas season.
Maintaining a democratic republic requires a lot of energy input and hard work. The coke bottle won’t stand up on it’s own for long without help steadying it.
Yes, but the healthcare issue really does hit people above and beyond things that make them complacent. If only the Dems could maintain the messaging on healthcare which helped take control of the house. The extremists on this seem, unfortunately, ready to shoot themselves in the foot.
Our challenge in a nutshell.
Erik Prince troops? No thank you.
Rod Blagojevich gets out of prison in 8 years. We need to stop him!
Specifically, if no one has standing, then the clause serves no legal purpose. It’s an absurd interpretation, but does seem to be the position the courts are taking.
Yes, with these rulings I am trying to figure out who exactly has standing.
Maybe Pence could sue, for not getting a fair share of the largesse.
I (sorta kinda) hate going off the deep end, but as ideological as the courts seemed to have become I can totally expect some far-right-wing “judge” to try to put the halt on even “legal” actions of a Democratic/Liberal President/Congress. If they can willfully allow such blatantly bad acts, they can willfully attempt to stop “good” acts that don’t agree with their ideology. 
IANAL, but I suspect that the interpretation may be that something can be “unconstitutional” without a remedy in the courts. I further suspect that the court would clearly come down on the side of “if Congress believes the Emoluments Clause has been broken, the solution is impeachment.” Which, of course they can afford to say because they know that even if the House somehow comes up with 2/3 to Impeach, the current Senate would never convict. -sigh-
An easier path would be for the President to refuse to accept John Marshall’s opinion of judicial review, and simply affirm that the Court cannot make or erase law, but only offer its opinion of legality. The President can accept it or ignore it.
Barr’s halfway there.