Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Appeals court dismisses 'emoluments' lawsuit involving President Trump's D.C. hotel [View all]ArizonaLib
(1,303 posts)30. There should be a remedy for determining who has/gets/suffers standing
There has to be a precedent on which to base an appeal. Also, I don't believe the birther cases should have been dismissed based on lack of standing. They should have been class actioned, evidence heard, and those bringing the case should have been humiliated in court in front of God and everyone, closing the early and quick, instead of the discussion going into Obama's second term. That was ridiculous.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
55 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Appeals court dismisses 'emoluments' lawsuit involving President Trump's D.C. hotel [View all]
BumRushDaShow
Jul 2019
OP
They didn't rule on the substance, only on whether these plaintiffs had standing to sue.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Jul 2019
#51
No. There are a ton of cases holding that a claim of generalized injuries
The Velveteen Ocelot
Jul 2019
#52
If the DAs of 2 States he's collecting bribes from don't have standing who would?
Farmer-Rick
Jul 2019
#3
I think that most people on DU understand by now the Senate's role in any impeachment and
in2herbs
Jul 2019
#23
Yes. Trump profiting off the hotel is scummy, shady, and distasteful, but its legal. nt
SylviaD
Jul 2019
#50
So, who exactly DOES have standing to enforce the emoluments clause?
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
Jul 2019
#13
The elected office of the Attorney General of D.C. should be considered to have standing
BumRushDaShow
Jul 2019
#19
Financial injury (including security costs among other things) for the city
BumRushDaShow
Jul 2019
#43
Those are precisely the types of injuries the court found didn't confer standing
onenote
Jul 2019
#44
The court found that protection of competition was not in the "zone of interests" that the clause is
onenote
Jul 2019
#46
I was a lawyer who started out as a law clerk for a circuit judge.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
Jul 2019
#54
Again, members of Congress have brought their own suit and were found to have standing
onenote
Jul 2019
#18
but it's a basic principal of constitutional interpretation that clauses were written for a reason.
unblock
Jul 2019
#35
it is enforceable by those who have standing, may be, if it were clear who has that beyond Congress.
Thomas Hurt
Jul 2019
#25
The 4th Circuit's dismissal of this suit leaves two other Emoluments Clause suits in place,...
mahatmakanejeeves
Jul 2019
#37