Posted on Feb 3, 2021
Supreme Court Says Germany Can't Be Sued In Nazi-Era Art Case
793
12
5
8
8
0
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Germany on Wednesday in a dispute over artworks obtained by the Nazis from German Jewish collectors in 1935. The court unanimously rejected a lower court ruling that had allowed the heirs of the onetime owners to proceed with their claim that the sale had been coerced.
At the center of the case is the Guelph Treasure, one of the most famous collections of medieval artifacts in existence. Now valued at $250 million, it has long been on display in a German state museum in Berlin.
Jed Leiber, one of the heirs, claims his grandfather and the other two owners of the collection were forced by the Nazis to sell for a fraction of the collection's value.
At the center of the case is the Guelph Treasure, one of the most famous collections of medieval artifacts in existence. Now valued at $250 million, it has long been on display in a German state museum in Berlin.
Jed Leiber, one of the heirs, claims his grandfather and the other two owners of the collection were forced by the Nazis to sell for a fraction of the collection's value.
Supreme Court Says Germany Can't Be Sued In Nazi-Era Art Case
Posted from npr.org
Lawsuit
Germany
WWII World War Two
Art
Supreme Court
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
They still wimped out–they should have reversed and dismissed instead of remanding.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I agree with you, but I also believe they should have heard the arguments of states changing their laws illegally in the last presidential election. Looks like the Supreme Court rare s bunch of weenies. MHO
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SFC (Join to see) - You are aware that SCOTUS is considering several election cases, aren't you? Scarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party was just distributed for conference on the petition for certiorari. Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar is shown as pending pet. for cert., and issued stays and similar rulings in a number of other cases, such as People First of Alabama v. Merrill, where they prohibited curbside voting.
Btw, your comment has nothing to do with the subject of this post.
Btw, your comment has nothing to do with the subject of this post.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - No, I wasn’t aware of these other cases. Thanks, it gives me something to look for. We typically don’t see cases like this in our regular news, stories like these voting cases most times nowadays are censored for being treasonous because nothing bad happened in the election.
It’s funny how 2 people can look at the same article and think the court wimped out for different reasons, as is I believe the case is for us. I just read the article again more closely and can agree we shouldn’t have anything to do with the case. It still gets me a little when a country takes private property wrongly which is what I believe is alleged here. If the Nazi’s didn’t pay close to fair market for the art my laypersons view is the original owners were wronged. After serving 2 years over there I don’t see their government giving anything back. As for the subject of the post: the SCOTUS wimping out on Germany, is the same as the SCOTUS wimping out on the election cases. You may say the cases you referenced are still moving forward, but I would say not in a timely manner to provide relief if they rule against the state. Of course, this could just by my ignorant layperson’s way of looking at the law. Sometimes what we view as being right isn’t necessarily legal.
It’s funny how 2 people can look at the same article and think the court wimped out for different reasons, as is I believe the case is for us. I just read the article again more closely and can agree we shouldn’t have anything to do with the case. It still gets me a little when a country takes private property wrongly which is what I believe is alleged here. If the Nazi’s didn’t pay close to fair market for the art my laypersons view is the original owners were wronged. After serving 2 years over there I don’t see their government giving anything back. As for the subject of the post: the SCOTUS wimping out on Germany, is the same as the SCOTUS wimping out on the election cases. You may say the cases you referenced are still moving forward, but I would say not in a timely manner to provide relief if they rule against the state. Of course, this could just by my ignorant layperson’s way of looking at the law. Sometimes what we view as being right isn’t necessarily legal.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google