Supreme Court Dismisses Case Creating a Laughter

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Supreme Court Dismisses Case Creating a Laughter

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1942400
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Supreme Court dismisses the emulents violations case against Trump even though he was president when this was suppose to take place because he is no longer president anymore.

    #1942408
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Hmm?

    #1942422
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Its a chuka veatlulh does not make any sense, chotei nisker, if he took money as president, he still has it. Why is it moot when he commited the crime when it was forbidden?

    #1942424
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    The second impeachment is being presented to the senate even though Trump is not president now as long as when he was impeached in the house, he was president to make sure he cannot run again.

    #1942436
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    I think you meant emoluments as in Article I Section 9?? What was most interesting about today’s decision is the way that vacated the lower court rulings so that they cannot be used as precedents in future cases. The cases were deemed moot since there is no longer an active dispute regarding a sitting President. In the context of the impeachment, if there was no way to impeach a President heading out the door, or already out the door, it would imply he could act with total impunity during his last weeks or months in office with fear of consequences.

    #1942437
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer

    Actually many constitutional scholars Alan Dershowitz amongst them are of the opinion that the Democrat impeachment is fundementally unconstitutional,

    Justice Roberts is actually declining to preside over it.

    #1942438

    indeed, strange, why is it “moot”
    not knowing anything about it, my guess is either:
    1) court just wants to get rid of this craziness

    2) it is a political issue:
    what is the punishment for the emulents? prison? probably, not. Impeachment?

    so, Court thinks that any extra impeachment is … moot … tiyuvta Pelosi tiyuvta

    #1942444
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Beasher hu shom, not when judged but when comitting the crime.

    #1942439
    hershh
    Participant

    Hope he runs again. MAGA. By the next election America will be longing for a real president (Trump) after the mess the Rats wil create.

    #1942453
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    GH, explain to me where is the justice in this rulling?

    #1942455
    Health
    Participant

    AAQ -“indeed, strange, why is it “moot””

    You don’t understand Roberts. He doesn’t play politics.
    He really believes that the 3 areas of government are separate entities.
    The SCOTUS could have involved themselves with the Stolen election.
    Even the Republican State Houses didn’t get involved. (Maybe they were scared?!?)
    So now when it’s on the other shoe, he’s not going to Rule against Trump!
    That’s why he’s not going to Judge the Senate trial.

    #1942458
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    I would not go by Dershovitz who held at the first impeachment that the president is above the law.

    #1942459
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    “even though Trump is not president now as long as when he was impeached in the house, he was president to make sure he cannot run again.“

    Exactly!

    That’s the only reason they want to impeach him and they have to bend over backwards to do it!

    #1942467
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    “Where is the Justice?”
    Reb E. SCOTUS frequently will punt on divisive issues leaving them undecided when the public (both side of the dispute) desperately wants closure and a definitive resolution. In this case, the facts didn’t appear to provide a good case in which to deliver the Court’s first decision on this provision of the Constitution and were more a referendum on Trump’s flouting of historical precedents regarding divesting assets and providing full transparency on his income/assets. Bad facts make bad precedent even though the public (myself included) were hoping they would decide the case on its merits, even after the fact.

    #1942492
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    if he took money as president, he still has it

    It has nothing to do with the money, the idea is not to allow a foreign government to influence policy.

    #1942493
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Also, it should be noted that there was no dissent.

    #1942497
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    The Court under Roberts has tried to avoid being viewed as a rubber stamp for Trump or anti-Trump parties and wherever possible has punted on political/election related matters. Even Trump himself seems truly outraged that his Court nominees didn’t show “loyalty” to him when dismissing a series of election-related cases. I guess he forgot that the Court allowed him to run out the clock on several cases dealing with disclosure of his tax and financial information by sending the cases back to lower courts for “further consideration”. Even when they soundly rejected Trump’s contention of absolute immunity while he was in office, they sent the case back to the trial court for additional argument.

    #1942541
    Yt
    Participant

    Trump paid them off

    #1942653
    akuperma
    Participant

    The case is moot. If the Democrats has been able to show that Trump was on the payroll of a foreign government, that would have been an impeachable offense. If the Democrats showed Trump was simply running a business, the Democrats would look silly since it is clear that presidents are allowed to moonlight (and many of the early presidents spent much time on their business interests including selling things to foreigners).

    Of course, if you believe, as Trump does, that Trump really won the election, the case wouldn’t be moot since Trump is still president. The Supreme Court clearly feels otherwise.

    #1942665
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    I don’t understand the whole thing. Is it moot because there is no proof or because he is not president anymore?

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.