Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Seth Barrett Tillman: The Mystery of Blumenthal v. Trump

    Posted by Jonathan on March 7th, 2019 (All posts by )

    …In other words, in the District of Columbia action, Judge Sullivan’s standing-only ruling did not dispose of the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. The customary or target deadline for resolving such a motion is 6 months—i.e., the 6-month target to resolve the motion was December 7, 2018. December 7 has come and gone. We are now 3 months post-deadline. There has been no call by the court for further clarification, renewed briefing, or renewed oral argument. Yet the DOJ’s motion to dismiss remains unresolved.
     
    Why?
    Why the delay?
    Where is the decision?
    What is going on?

    Read Seth’s entire post.
     
     
    UPDATE: Part II: The Mystery of Senator Richard Blumenthal v. President Donald J Trump

     

    3 Responses to “Seth Barrett Tillman: The Mystery of Blumenthal v. Trump

    1. Brian Says:

      Would one have to be paranoid to think this Clinton appointed judge is just waiting for the right time to rule against Trump?

      Hopefully Team Trump has plans to deal with the fact that the next 18 months will see all out war upon them by the establishment, from impeachment, to any and all legal roadblocks they can put up, to indictments by New York state against any and all Trump associates and family members they can nail, no matter how flimsy the grounds.

    2. Grurray Says:

      The CREW v. Trump case is as flimsy as it gets. CREW realized early on that they had no standing, so they brought on a restaurant trade group as a co-plaintiff in order to argue that Trump’s foreign contacts were depriving them of business. The only way to prove that is for a foreign dignitary to testify that they ate in a Trump hotel rather than at a competitor’s restaurant in order to enrich Trump to influence policy, and if the foreign dignitary hadn’t had that alleged emolument opportunity they would’ve eaten in the competitor’s restaurant instead.

      And even if they prove that standing, the Founders didn’t write that clause in order to insure competition among restaurants in the nation’s capitol. The whole thing is so stupid it’s amazing it has made it this far. I didn’t know much about Larry Tribe or Erwin Chemerinsky before Trump came to office, but now I understand that their chief skills are turning the judicial system into a clown show.

    3. ErisGuy Says:

      So why cannot the President get his motions decided in a timely way just like any other litigant in the federal courts? It is all so difficult to understand

      Ask Mark Steyn.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.