Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuits Against the Ex-President, Endorsing Blatant Large-Scale Corruption

Cases 20-330 and 20-331 - dismissed as moot

The ex-president is off the hook

On Jan. 22, the justices met and decided what to do about various cases. Two cases, 20-330 and 20-331 were lawsuits against the former president for violating the emoluments clause. The cases had been pending for several years. In both cases, the ex-president lost his attempt to dismiss the cases at the federal appeals court level. In the Jan. 22 meeting, the justices voted to accept the cases for consideration than then dismissed both as moot. The justices ordered to lower court cases to be dismissed, leaving no federal appellate court opinion left on the record.

In essence, the court delayed long enough to allow the ex-president to illegally profit for all the time he was in office with no adverse legal impact. Going forward, the next corrupt president will have a roadmap of how to be corrupt and profit from being in office. All the president has to do is get out of office before the court finally gets around to dealing with lawsuits. The US supreme court has endorsed blatant, large-scale corruption by providing a roadmap of how to profit from being the president.

Some of the attorneys who argued cases against the ex-president claimed that one lower court decision would serve as a deterrent, but that is just speculation. An AP article commented: 

The cases never reached the point where any records had to be turned over. But Karl Racine and Brian Frosh, the attorneys general of Washington, D.C., and Maryland, respectively, said in a joint statement that a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland that went against Trump “will serve as precedent that will help stop anyone else from using the presidency or other federal office for personal financial gain the way that President Trump has over the past four years.”

What about the rule of law?

No justice dissented from the vote to dismiss these two lawsuits. Because of that, people who actually value and respect the rule of law can conclude that all nine justices should be impeached for gross incompetence, corruption and/or unreasonable political bias. Is that an unreasonable reaction? Maybe. 

It is the case that in February of 2021 the ex-president will be tried in the US Senate for insurrection even though he is and will be out of office. If he can be held responsible after leaving office for impeachable offenses, why can't he be held responsible for blatant corruption after leaving office? What great legal principle does this inexplicable incoherence rest on? None that I'm aware of, but I'm not a legal scholar. Or, will the impeachment case go up to the court and then dismissed as moot, once again protecting a corrupt and treasonous ex-president? Maybe that is how the 2nd impeachment case will crash and burn.

Maybe the ex-president was right to say that a US president is above the law. That is how it has played out so far.

Once again, the depressing weakness of the rule of law is on display. Powerful and wealthy people and politicians operate under a far more lenient set of laws than the rest of us unwashed masses. As discussed here before, laws don't really exist for the most part for the rich and powerful. This is another mark of the profound sickness that has descended on and engulfed American government and the courts. Wealth and power have been turned against the people. That is done in service to the wealthy and powerful, not the public interest.