This is disappointing. He’s committing crimes in plain sight, fer chis’sake. Smells like the fix is in.
I suppose it’s fair to halt proceedings given the appeal, but why the hell does it take so long to schedule oral arguments in these cases? March? How about next week?
Oral argument only happens after extensive briefing is filed by both sides – typically an opening brief by the party bringing the appeal, then a brief by the party opposing, and a final rebuttal brief by the appellant. A schedule is set for that. (Sometimes additional briefing is allowed.) Plus, in high-profile cases, friend-of-the-court (“amicus”) briefs from state attorneys general, advocacy organizations, etc. are typically allowed – the court approves which entities will have the right to file such briefs, and sets a deadline for them. Based on the parties’ briefs plus amicus briefs plus their own research, clerks for the appellate court judges prepare memos and the judges use those plus the briefs to prepare for oral argument. (That cutting question – or series of astute questions – leading to a key realization or concession at oral argument aren’t typically made up on the spot.) All of that takes time, even for a more run-of-the-mill case; March for oral argument in a case of this level of importance and complexity is not a very long time at all. (Yes, I am a lawyer – and have seen and argued cases on appeal.)
As my dear old Dad used to say, “Horsefeathers!”
If the attorneys general of two of our states don’t have standing to enforce an anti-corruption clause in our federal Constitution, then WHO THE F*** DOES?
Do they expect Trump’s appointee U.S. attorney general to enforce this? He serves at the pleasure of the President, for Crikey’s sake.
Or is it just window-dressing? Like “one man, one vote” has become with “corporations are people” and “Citizens United” and all the incessant gerrymandering?
It feels absurd in this case. A waste of time, money, and justice.
Well, this is one of the most important cases since the November 2016 election and deals with an issue never previously thoroughly litigated. It requires thoughtful review and fairness for all sides. The lack of that thoughtfulness and fairness is one of the most telling failings of our President. I agree with mpmonoco that time to brief the issues from all sides and for the court to reflect on the arguments is required. Then we’ll see what they - and the Supremes - have to say about it.
I think Trump has worse problems ahead. An emoluments case? Pfffft.
Fffffffffffffffffffffffff… you know the rest.
Why can’t they finish the one case first, allow discovery and evidence to come in and reach some kind of decision before they’re allowed to appeal the case, like most cases? This is bullshit. Once again, tRump works to upend the judicial process and someone higher up gives into to his shit and allows that to happen.
Yeah, but sometimes in really important cases, as a trade off for granting a stay, the parties get put on an accelerated briefing schedule.
The DOJ got a stay from the Circuit by essentially arguing that there is no remedy for a violation of the emoluments clause by President Trump. A position similar to what Allan Dershowitz argues on FOX constantly about Trump’s conspiracy with a foreign power to steal a Presidential election, and about Trump’s ability to commit obstruction of justice at whim.
But on what basis is the DOJ defending Trump in this case. The action filed against him accuses Trump, the individual, of violating the Constitutional terms and requirements of his office. Why should taxpayers be paying for his defense in this.
So liberal attorney generals drop the individual suits against Trump so as to expedite discovery and the trial, and “coincidentally” the appellate court immediately puts the whole case + a new consideration on ice for several months. Scratch a liberal…
This sucks.
Why first three months away to hear case. Actions like this will only irate the American people as seeing this as a coverup of wrong doing by the President.
Congratulations, you win dumbest post on this thread.
Alright, a little sanity here. First, mpmonaco is correct with respect to the scheduling of these kinds of things. With any appeal, the court wants briefs so they will know the arguments being raised by the parties for they which they will prepare. This case does not involve an emergency (nobody’s life is at stake) so a reasonable schedule takes them into March.
Second, it absolutely makes sense to do this now rather than waiting until later. There has never (as far as I can tell) been a successful emoluments case before (no President has had the cojones to do what Trump does) so the questions of whether there is a right to sue, who can sue, and what harm has to be shown, are critical threshold questions. Why should the parties have to expend resources battling this out in district court if the appeals court will ultimately find that the case should not have been brought? This is the correct way to go.
Finally, someone asked why Trump is being defended by DOJ if he is being sued personally. The states dropped Trump personally as a defendant, so that’s no longer an issue. (It would have been a tricky argument to make anyway, because Trump’s actions in this regard are in his capacity as President, so suing him personally is a big hill to climb).
I was hoping that the court would expedite consideration. I don’t know what the caseload is in the 4th Circuit, but it looks like this is pretty much the usual course for an appeal. (Someone in the circuit could correct me.)
The 4th Circuit actually ought to be a favorable circuit. It used to be very “conservative,” but under Obama was stocked with a lot of new judges, and now is one of the more “liberal” ones. Along with tRump’s favorite, the 9th.
If not state’s attorney generals, who would “have standing” to bring an emoluments case?
When a law (or clause) is broken at this level of government, there should be a clear path to accountability, no? Apparently DOJ isn’t on that path, except when defending a president?
I’m curious what that clear path is in this case…? If only the “harmed” can bring suit, then presidents et al can break the law with impunity, so long as they don’t bring it it to a level of individual harm.
Which then forces me to ask, who would have the money or clout to bring a case like that, if there ever were one? Other hoteliers in D.C.?
I’m again mystified by it all…