Ah bum. I'm also really disappointed the Supreme Court has stopped the emoluments cases being heard.
Also, confused.
I completely understand the case about Trump blocking critics from his Twitter account is moot, because there is no longer any remedy. He's no longer president so his ramblings are no longer part of the record, so it doesn't matter whether the public can see them.
But how are the emoluments now moot? What would the remedy usually be?
Merely that the person breaking the clause would be told to stop doing it? In that case I can see why it's moot.
But if there's some punitive action, then that surely wouldn't be moot?
It does seem extraordinary that there might be no punitive action; surely that makes the clause entirely toothless. The corrupt incumbent could just say, "Shan't," when told to stop taking money or benefits from foreign powers, and that would be that. If it depends upon Congress to decide whether or not to punish someone who breaks the rules... well we can see how that went.
Yet another area to be tightened up, now that someone has actually pushed the envelope. As if the new administration didn't have enough to do...
I do feel this is quite important, though. The fact that Saudis are among the elements alleged to have paid Trump through his businesses, and that a change in US policy towards Saudi Arabia has been top of Biden's To Do list, makes obvious just how important.