For the Emoluments thing...If I'm understanding correctly*, I can't hold it against the Supreme Court if the case wasn't presented to them in time, so I can see why they wouldn't bother seeing the case now.
*and I may very well not be
This is how I understand it, too. As he is no longer president, Trump is not running afoul of the Emoluments Clause. I forget the details, but at least one if not both of the cases dismissed were asking for the court to order Trump to divest from his interests while acting as President. In that regard, it is moot.
However, the Court should still have taken it up and made a ruling. Two points to this:
- If a federal employee is found to have benefited from their position, they must surrender what was earned, on top of whatever other punishments they get. You don't get to keep the spoils of your corruption.
- It tees up the next horrible thing: dismissing this as no longer relevant can and will be used as a point by the GOP to say the impeachment should be dropped as he is no longer in office. Which is an abhorrent and wholly un-American precedent to set, as it is saying that an elected official can do terrible things while in office and face no consequence from it so long as they resign at least one second before the Senate gavel comes down on a conviction.
Before someone dares draw a parallel to Nixon, he resigned
before the House impeached him, whereas Cheeto Benito was impeached prior to leaving office.
edition.cnn.com
www.independent.co.uk
www.courthousenews.com
www.rawstory.com
apnews.com
www.tatler.com
www.theguardian.com
