BREAKING: SCOTUS allows a liberal federal judge to force the government to fund USAID. Roberts and Barrett side with liberal justices. Alito and other conservatives on the Court are stunned and angry. Legal analysis below in the comments. - The Great Awakening

214

BREAKING: SCOTUS allows a liberal federal judge to force the government to fund USAID. Roberts and Barrett side with liberal justices. Alito and other conservatives on the Court are stunned and angry. Legal analysis below in the comments. Embarrassing!

posted 7 days ago by WinsAnon 7 days ago by WinsAnon +214 / -0

The media so far has not understood this ruling properly, but I admit it looks bad.

This is a one-page unsigned order by the Supreme Court. It entertains no legal analysis and therefore it has no true precedential effect. It merely says the DOJ did not argue that the monies were not owed to the NGOs for work already performed, and therefore the lower court's order to pay the monies was something the lower court could order at his discretion.

I do feel like the DOJ bungled this petition. They will learn from this and I think we'll win the second bite at the apple when a similar case comes up next.

Now, sadly, this order will encourage other rogue district court judges to make the same kinds of findings, but I do predict something will get to the Supreme Court soon which will compel a full legal analysis of the executive's authority. This case did not do that, and I do fault the DOJ for its handling of this case.

But I am gobsmacked by Roberts and Barrett. Something is up with those two.

64 comments

64 comments share save hide report block hide replies

To The Great Awakening

We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here. WE ARE THE PUBLIC FACE OF Q. OUR MISSION IS TO RED-PILL NORMIES.

This is a pro-Q community. Please read and respect our rules below before contributing.

WHY Q?

"Those who cannot understand that we cannot simply start arresting w/o first: ensuring the safety & well-being of the population shifting the narrative removing those in DC through resignation to ensure success defeating ISIS/MS13 to prevent fail-safes freezing assets to remove network-to-network abilities kill off COC to prevent top-down comms/org, etc. etc. should not be participating in discussions." Q

Comments (64)

sorted by:

▲ 3 ▼

– ArmyLady 3 points 7 days ago +3 / -0

I appreciate the analysis provided in the comments. YET . . . I trust the justices in dissent more . . .

Roberts has been wishy-washy for a LONG time.

The Barrett nomination was to provide another solid, reliable vote for understanding of the Constitution with no holds barred.

So she is the monkey in the works.

"Nominate a woman! The dems will not attack her or derail her confirmation!" DEI anyone??

Nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court! Did the Republicans get any credit for nominating the first woman?? How did Sandra Day O'Connor work out??

No matter how brilliant, most women just do not think like the best of logical, rational, analytical, dispassionate men (not you frens!!)

[I have been told I have a "male brain". HA! I know when I am operating on emotion, which must be confined to the personal sphere.]

I swear, I will never vote for a woman who is not clearly superior to her opponent. Or the lesser of the two evils . . .

permalink save report block reply