Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little
-
Always interesting when there is a close decision. Nine very smart people, well experienced, but come to opposite conclusions.
Justice Alito says he was "stunned" decision. But I am sure that the five who voted the other way were just as "stunned" everybody was not in agreement.
-
Yep, the rumor is that Dems have some compromising material on Robert's.
As for Barrett, I'm disappointed in several of her rulings.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Yep, the rumor is that Dems have some compromising material on Robert's.
As for Barrett, I'm disappointed in several of her rulings.
@Jolly said in Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little:
Yep, the rumor is that Dems have some compromising material on Robert's.
Unnamed sources?
-
As always, just like the NYT gets their news...
-
@Jolly said in Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little:
As always, just like the NYT gets their news...
Well, for all I know it could be your barber said something. I Googled 'compromising material on Roberts', and came up with nothing, so I'm guessing it's not a particularly well-known rumour.
-
I have no problem with the decision. When and if Congress actually passes funding, I think the President does have an obligation to spend it. Now, if it’s general in nature “$10,000,000 for earthquake relief supplies for Botswana” , then the Executive does have latitude in how that $10M is spent. Whether it’s sent through NGOs, a check given to Botswana, or actually acquiring and delivering $10M in relief supplies… If it’s specific, then his latitude is less.
Going forward, he has the option of vetoing future funding passed by Congress.
-
I have no problem with the decision. When and if Congress actually passes funding, I think the President does have an obligation to spend it. Now, if it’s general in nature “$10,000,000 for earthquake relief supplies for Botswana” , then the Executive does have latitude in how that $10M is spent. Whether it’s sent through NGOs, a check given to Botswana, or actually acquiring and delivering $10M in relief supplies… If it’s specific, then his latitude is less.
Going forward, he has the option of vetoing future funding passed by Congress.
There was a good presentation on BBC world service this afternoon explaining the decision. Essentially it is the decision of the Court that the US government must fulfill its contractual obligations to pay both domestic and foreign consultants and NGOs for work completed under the terms of awarded USAID projects.
In other words Uncle Sam is still obligated to pay its bills just like everybody else.
Has nothing to do with project work not yet begun or had been planned for the future that is now postponed or cancelled altogther.
-
Yeah this was money for work already performed under a valid contract. Only Donald Trump would think one doesn’t have to pay that.
-
Seems to me I read somewhere ten or so years ago, that the current POTUS has had a bad track record, dating back to when he was in the private sector, of not paying contractors and their subs for work satisfactorily signed off and completed. Not only unfair but also a disgrace.
-
Yes he has a long record of not paying his debts, companies going bankrupt, and using donations from poor folks to pay off fines.
@89th said in Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little:
Yes he has a long record of not paying his debts, companies going bankrupt, and using donations from poor folks to pay off fines.
"No one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people"
-
Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters were stunned.
JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH join, dissenting from the denial of the application to vacate order.
Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned. -
Odd for a member of the Supreme Court who just formally reviewed the lower court’s order to call it an ‘unchecked power’.
@jon-nyc said in Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little:
Odd for a member of the Supreme Court who just formally reviewed the lower court’s order to call it an ‘unchecked power’.
The decision he's reacting sets precedent which gives this unchecked power to the lower courts to do this thing.
