Trump lost his bid to toss out Emolument case.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has just rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to have an emoluments clause case thrown out.
The court ruled 9-6 against the President and in favor of Attorneys General from Maryland and Washington, D.C.
The ruling keeps the case alive, allowing it to continue.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/trump-loses-bid-to-toss-out-emoluments-case/
Cause they really don’t want all of us to vote. If they wanted each vote to count, they wouldn’t spend time getting people off the voting roll or making it more difficult for minorities, poor, native Americans etc etc.
This is why they block any kind of legislation that would benefit the voters and help with hacks in the elections or mail in votes. This is why they love gerrymandering. All to stay in power.
Imagine if everyone one in the whole country would be able to vote. I know I’m Ecuador if you don’t vote you owe a fine that must be paid. You can’t leave the country without paying. My husband had not been back in 20 years. He paid. They want everyone to vote.
@Jessi1978, I get that and ty for responding;-) However, what about democrats? Why haven't they ever changed this? I know gerrymandering is a thing Republicans do and it takes congress and the senate majorities, but democrats have held both houses in the past. Why haven't they addressed this? There must be some idealistic politicians out there?
It just feels very odd. I grew up in the 80s when every TV show portrayed the glory of the US and every little boy and girl in Europe believed America/American was the place to live and be. When I first visited I couldn't believe my eyes: such amazing sites, nature and majestic history vs. areas so downtrodden I'd only seen them in the 3rd world. But at least it seemed like politicians wanted to fix things you know...
And with Trump, everything he does and says also effects the rest of us (climate, world safety, Corona etc.), but we cannot vote him out.
@jessi1978, thanks for the update on the Emolument case. This illustrates the importance of having experienced, intelligent, and non-partisan judges on Federal benches.
I have a question about all of these Federal judicial appointments that Moscow Mitch and his bunch are ramming through the Senate. Once power shifts to the Democrats, is there any away to get rid of some of these questionable judges? My understanding is that they are appointed for life, but there is something called a Good Behavior clause that might support their removal. Does anyone know anything about that? I'm sure it's not an easy process, and I haven't heard whether that's ever been successfully implemented.
I get that...However, what about democrats? Why haven't they ever changed this? I know gerrymandering is a thing Republicans do and it takes congress and the senate majorities, but democrats have held both houses in the past. Why haven't they addressed this? There must be some idealistic politicians out there?And with Trump, everything he does and says also effects the rest of us (climate, world safety, Corona etc.), but we cannot vote him out.
@moonbeam. The U.S. is now oligarch-controlled. It is not in the hands of the majority of Americans although we are all working hard to change it. Turn around and face east towards Russia and China then south towards Saudi Arabia and Israel. Their elites have influence in U.S. actions. The Koch Brothers who started the conservative shift to the extreme right in this country, made their oil money from Stalin and Hitler. Democrats have won the popular votes in 6 of the last 7 elections but the Republicans took office in four because the election is decided by the Electoral College, not the popular vote.
To turn the tide towards the people, the dems will have to win a landslide as they did with Obama. But even during Obama's tenure, he only had control over Congress for four months.
There is a much touted lie that during two years of the Obama presidency the democrats had total control. It is a lie because Senate requires a super majority, not just a majority (60 out of a hundred votes) to end a filibuster and bring a bill to law. The democrats only held control of the Senate for four months, during which Obamacare was passed. Also there are Democrats who are conservative and vote with Republicans.
The Senate gives two votes to every state regardless of population, so rural states get the same number of votes as urban states. So Alaska which is just 68,000 people gets the same two votes as California which has 38 million people. The Netherlands with its 17 million people, is like a large liberal state in the U.S. Same goes for Denmark and Germany. You are in the same boat as the liberal American states and the progressive people all over America.
As for the voting process, the gerrymandering and registration, is controlled by the states, not the federal government. To do away with the electoral college would require ratification by the 50 state legislatures as well as the Congress. The only way we got rid of slavery was to fight the bloodiest war in our history.
If I've misstated any of these legal and historical points, please correct me!
We all live with this reality and thousands of Americans work everyday to change it.
We can shorten the the tenure of all judicial appointments by legislatively doing away with lifetime appointments for federal judgeships, including Supreme Court justices. There's lots of talk about expanding the judiciary, but I think lifetime appointments are the 500-pound gorilla in the room. It's crazy how the vagaries of a single election cycle can determine the makeup of the federal courts for generations. Team Red's recent effort to ram through as many young, conservative judges as it can is the inevitable endpoint of this gamesmanship. And it's exhausting to constantly worry about the health of the oldest member of the Supreme Court.
When the dust settles from this current White House administration, I don't see how we're going to decide that lifetime appointments to the courts are a still a good idea (especially since the cultural changes that will be occurring in the American collective over the next two decades will be unfolding at exponential speeds).
Or, states and governmental officials can simply ignore the rulings of ultra-conservative judges that are too out of touch with the direction America is heading in. The courts are only powerful insofar as our institutions are willing to carry out their wills. If enough of the American collective is telling out-of-touch judges, "screw you," then those judges' authority is effectively nullified (think of jury nullification, writ large).
I've been seeing for a while that the period from the 2020s through the 2040s would be one of massive readjustment, where many of the institutions of American public life that we associate with reality itself will be challenged en masse and crumble in the face of a collective that is desperate for a new direction. So if the scenario I just described sounds anarchic, then that's a spot on appraisal. At its most basic level, anarchy is the ability of the social fabric to undo rigid institutions that are no longer serving the common good. The anarchy of the future won't be about guns and molotov cocktails; it will be prayerful and inclusive. We've already seen previews of what this looks like in the form of the the Water Protectors at Standing Rock and the Mauna Kea Protectors in Hawaii.
I read this on Bloomberg:
Two sets of judges from the fuller panel issued dissenting opinions on Thursday.
“Make no mistake about what has really happened here,” five of them wrote. “By discarding centuries of settled practice and precedent that kept true to the genius of the Constitution and its separation of powers, the majority has only confirmed one of the Founders’ worst fears: that, while no man may be above the law, a group of judges, so emboldened, may consider themselves beyond it.”
I've been seeing for a while that the period from the 2020s through the 2040s would be one of massive readjustment, where many of the institutions of American public life that we associate with reality itself will be challenged en masse and crumble in the face of a collective that is desperate for a new direction. So if the scenario I just described sounds anarchic, then that's a spot on appraisal. At its most basic level, anarchy is the ability of the social fabric to undo rigid institutions that are no longer serving the common good.
This fits with the Pluto return of the US, which we're feeling now and which will be exact in 2022. We're going to be dealing with the federal judiciary and the electoral college for a while beyond that, but perhaps the Pluto return brings to the surface these things that are in need of reform. (Pluto rules transformation and reform.)
The process may be uncomfortable for some time. And while the Constitution has been a guiding light for this country, it doesn't mean we should treat it as some untouchable holy relic either.
It's a change to be welcomed. New voices are rising up, and many of these voices would not have even been considered full human beings at the time the Constitution was written. We can preserve the best of the document while changing it to reflect all of the United States, not just white males with property holdings.