Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 01:17 last edited by
Yeah this was money for work already performed under a valid contract. Only Donald Trump would think one doesn’t have to pay that.
-
Yeah this was money for work already performed under a valid contract. Only Donald Trump would think one doesn’t have to pay that.
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 01:18 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little:
Yeah this was money for work already performed under a valid contract. Only Donald Trump would think one doesn’t have to pay that.
Maybe Elon Musk, too.
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 01:32 last edited by
Fair point.
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 02:01 last edited by Renauda 10 days ago
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.
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 02:22 last edited by
Yes he has a long record of not paying his debts, companies going bankrupt, and using donations from poor folks to pay off fines.
-
Yes he has a long record of not paying his debts, companies going bankrupt, and using donations from poor folks to pay off fines.
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 02:36 last edited by Doctor Phibes 10 days ago@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"
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 15:23 last edited by
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. -
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 16:57 last edited by jon-nyc 9 days ago
Odd for a member of the Supreme Court who just formally reviewed the lower court’s order to call it an ‘unchecked power’.
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 20:18 last edited by
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 20:19 last edited by
Also Kavanaugh was hardly looking at him admiringly.
-
Odd for a member of the Supreme Court who just formally reviewed the lower court’s order to call it an ‘unchecked power’.
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 21:00 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 21:01 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little:
He says this like its a bad thing.
(though to be clear I doubt its true)
Body language and facial expression dunks, as dunks go, are bottom-tier.
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 21:01 last edited by
No it would always and forever be appealable to the Supreme Court.
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 21:08 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little:
No it would always and forever be appealable to the Supreme Court.
Oh, you found an absolute, categorical way to read Alito's words so that they're completely absurd, and indicative of a total lack of basic knowledge of the law. That's reasonable.
-
wrote on 6 Mar 2025, 21:22 last edited by jon-nyc 9 days ago
He was emoting, not reasoning. So yeah, the more partisan justices can be found to say some odd things some times. The top two partisans, he and Sotomayor, have both been guilty of it more than others.
-
wrote on 7 Mar 2025, 03:18 last edited by
The bigger drama is Trump saying to Roberts "Thank you, I won't forget it" as if Roberts did him a favor (maybe he did). Scandal! (not really)
-
Yep, the rumor is that Dems have some compromising material on Robert's.
As for Barrett, I'm disappointed in several of her rulings.
wrote on 8 Mar 2025, 04:00 last edited by@Jolly said in Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little:
As for Barrett, I'm disappointed in several of her rulings.
You are not teh only one. LOL
Amy Coney Barrett's conservative credentials ought to be impeccable. The Supreme Court justice was appointed to her seat by President Donald Trump during his first term, and she provided one of the votes that overturned Roe v. Wade. But recent cases indicate she is not an automatic vote for the president's priorities, and she is drawing the right's scrutiny as a result.
Barrett may be the "crucial vote in Trump cases," said The New York Times. She was the only one of three justices appointed by Trump who voted against his administration's emergency request to freeze foreign aid, providing the critical margin in the 5-4 ruling against the president. The result suggested Trump cannot count on the court's 6-3 conservative supermajority to back "every element of his efforts to expand the authority of the executive branch." That has enraged some conservatives. "The power has gone to her head," said conservative podcaster Mark Levin.
Barrett's vote on the foreign aid freeze "sparked a MAGA meltdown," said The Daily Beast. Barrett, the lone woman conservative justice, is "another DEI hire," said Trumpist influencer Mike Cernovich. Other influential activists on the Trumpist right echoed those criticisms. Barrett's vote is "a big problem," said journalist Eric Daugherty.
https://theweek.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-maga-votes-supreme-court
-
wrote on 8 Mar 2025, 04:25 last edited by
LOL, I love this misconception…
"every element of his efforts to expand the authority of the executive branch.
The guy is limiting the scope of the Executive Branches. He’s reducing their roles. He’s actually weakening the Executive agencies.