R2: The level of mind numbing stupidity here is really quite astounding.

It's possible that we The_Donald (as a collective whole) can sue to 200+ members of Congress that filed an Emoluments Clause lawsuit yesterday.

It's not.

See normally members of Congress are immune to legal action under the debate and speech clause of the Constitution. Now this immunity shield is some pretty strong Death Star stuff BUT members lose this Death Star immunity if they do things that are beyond the normal legislative shit they do.

This is actually more or less correct. Through the Speech or Debate Clause of Article I, Members of Congress are immune to litigation for any activity they cary out within the scope of their legislative functions. But...

Like file a lawsuit against the President. That is why when I heard about this I was kind of like "fucking A whaaaat." Yea so in filing suit against the President these 196 Democrats have taken their imperial Tie Fighters into another solar system away from the home planet and so THEY ARE EXPOSED.

Filing a lawsuit against the president is arguably not within a congresspersons legislative functions, and so they would not enjoy immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause. However, the mere act of doing so does not automatically expose them to liability. I am having a hard time seeing what they are exposed to here, other than /r/The_Donald's collective stupidity.

Now since all 196 are named Plaintiffs this means that any person who has a claim against them which could be argued as arising from the same underlying facts and circumstances as they allegations -(this is very broad by the way) can move the Court to intervene in this Emoluments litigation as a "THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF"

Huh?

Random parties can't typically just join litigation out of nowhere because they feel like it without a good reason. The existing parties typically need to move to add new parties. To intervene you usually need to either A) have a claim or right so closely related to the subject matter of the litigation that litigating without you would be unfair and impair your ability to protect your interests or B) have a claim or defense that shares some common question of law or fact with the existing action. Additionally, third party practice has nothing to do with intervening parties. A third party action (an impleader) happens when an existing defendant to the action brings in a third-party who they allege may be liable to them for all or part of any judgment the defendant may owe to the plaintiff. The existing defendant is the Third Party Plaintiff and the impled party is the Third Party Defendant.

And if there were enough of us "third-party Plaintiffs" we could intervene as a "class" in a class action Third-Party Plaintiff and wait - it gets better seek a judgment against everyone of 196 members of Congress PERSONALLY.

That's...not how class actions work. A typical class action involves multiple plaintiffs asserting the same or similar rights against a defendant, and it would be impractical to try all of the plaintiffs claims individual, rather than as one unit. The mere fact of having lots of plaintiffs doesn't make something a class action.

Yea so -whew- I can't believe they were this stupid.

The irony.

So I am still doing some research but so far what I have stated above holds true.

It doesn't.

The question is - on what grounds are we going to sue these bastards.

Not appropriating enough education money so that we can solve the problem of ignorant people like you. Didn't right this but just so you guys know