Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little
-
wrote on 5 Mar 2025, 17:14 last edited by
https://apple.news/AmDEJcPvdRqG_kF73FuFnJg
Supreme Court denies Trump administration request to cancel $2 billion in foreign aid
The Supreme Court in a 5-4 emergency ruling Wednesday refused to halt a judge’s decision ordering the Trump administration to immediately release nearly $2 billion in foreign aid payments owed under existing contracts.
It hands a loss to the administration in the first time that Trump’s efforts to drastically reshape federal spending, agency by agency, have reached the high court.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with the court’s three liberals to side against the administration. -
wrote on 5 Mar 2025, 17:44 last edited by taiwan_girl 3 May 2025, 17:46
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.
-
wrote on 5 Mar 2025, 18:59 last edited by
Yep, the rumor is that Dems have some compromising material on Robert's.
As for Barrett, I'm disappointed in several of her rulings.
-
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 5 Mar 2025, 19:06 last edited by@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?
-
wrote on 5 Mar 2025, 19:07 last edited by
As always, just like the NYT gets their news...
-
wrote on 5 Mar 2025, 19:21 last edited by
@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.
-
wrote on 5 Mar 2025, 20:53 last edited by
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.
wrote on 5 Mar 2025, 23:25 last edited by Renauda 9 days agoThere 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.
-
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 9 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 9 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 8 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.