Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

no. not really. it says that Maryland and DC have no

Posted on: July 10, 2019 at 10:52:50 CT
blake1771 MU
Posts:
14492
Member For:
20.06 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
standing b/c there is not a specific, particularized, imminent injury. their suit basically asserted a hypothetical and generalized injury.
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

Maryland and DC's emoluments case against Trump dismissed - blake1771 KC - 7/10 09:58:43
     RE: Maryland and DC's emoluments case against Trump dismissed - None**** MU - 7/10 10:24:04
     love all the idiot dems in the reponses - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 7/10 10:23:11
     RE: Maryland and DC's emoluments case against Trump dismissed - Ace AU - 7/10 10:07:00
          ^^^DOC(nm) - NWMizzouFan MU - 7/10 10:15:03
               RE: ^^^DOC(nm) - Ace AU - 7/10 10:22:09
     RE: Maryland and DC's emoluments case against Trump dismissed - MrBlueSky MU - 7/10 10:00:22
          lol keep the hope alive (nm) - Sal KC - 7/10 10:07:27
          Kick that football Charlie Brown(nm) - 4TigersinMichigan MU - 7/10 10:03:27
               The dismissal effectively says the emoluments question - MrBlueSky MU - 7/10 10:05:45
                    no. not really. it says that Maryland and DC have no - blake1771 KC - 7/10 10:52:50
                         do you know the parties in the congressional case? - gmmm98 MU - 7/10 11:04:52
                              of course, 195 dem congressmen and women. the case is - blake1771 KC - 7/10 11:13:14
                                   that's a different standing test - gmmm98 MU - 7/10 11:17:07
          The replies to that tweet are beyond stupid. The AG had - hefeweizen MU - 7/10 10:02:15




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard