Thursday, March 6, 2025
An interesting SCOTUS ruling
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled that a judge's order forcing the Trump administration to pay about $2 billion in foreign aid that it had "frozen". This is interesting from a number of perspectives.
Firstly, the funds concerned are owed to parties (contractors, NGO's and other agencies) for work that had already been completed. They weren't for projects that have yet to be begun, or work that has not yet been undertaken. I can see the sense in that. No matter whether one agrees with the politics of the former Biden administration or not, if it committed those funds to pay for those contracts and the work was carried out as agreed, then it should be paid for. The ruling does not force the Trump administration to undertake, or authorize, or pay for, any more such projects.
Second, the ruling does not address one of the Trump administration's key issues: whether or not a single district court judge can issue a ruling binding the administration in every district, in every State of the Union. Surely a district court's powers extend only to the district concerned? SCOTUS did not rule on this (to the stated displeasure of four SCOTUS justices, let it be said). This leaves that question open to further consideration. Should that be by SCOTUS, or by new legislation passed by Congress and the Senate to be signed by President Trump? Who can make that determination?
Third, agencies, NGO's and others that have depended on US government aid until now have to seriously re-evaluate their work going forward. They now know they can't rely on a "bottomless cup" of largesse from the United States. They're either going to have to get assurances on a project-by-project case that the income will be there to support it, or they're going to have to put all such projects on hold unless and until a new modus operandi can be worked out with regard to funding. Already some major charities and NGO's have furloughed or laid off large proportions of their workforces. Expect that to continue.
Needless to say, I don't like the SCOTUS ruling: but I believe in the rule of law. This one might be distasteful to me, but I can't argue with its basic rationale; that you pay for the completed work for which you contracted. The Trump administration may not have contracted for it, but the Biden administration did, explicitly or implicitly; therefore, the obligation exists.
Why did Amy Coney Barrett choose to vote this way? Something about her has changed drastically since her confirmation hearing. Has she or her family been threatened or doxxed?
Coverage from Trump's address showed her glaring at Trump; I was very surprised.
Then she voted against what most Americans want, with all the women on the court, plus the chief justice. Is it a coincidence that she and Roberts look like family members?
SCOTUS is not about "what people want", it's about ruling on the Constitutional aspects of law. Read the article again, the money was for programs and stuff that had already been done.
It might be distasteful but regardless, America pays its debts. Going forward, however, these payments need to stop.
Did you actually read the post you replied to, or are you just spreading FUD?
She was right to vote this way, and the post outlined why.
Let's put it like this: you're a new c o at a business. The previous c e o requested construction on a building and the work was done.
They submit a bill. Now you say Hey, we're trying to cut costs, so we're just not gonna pay you.
So there may be some other mitigating factors, service may be something that we didn't like to be provided, but you the customer already agreed to pay the price.
Now I don't know about you, but I was taught to always fulfill obligations, especially when service has already been rendered. Not paying ypur bills s a big, no, no. As long as it wasn't for something illegal, there's a moral and legal obligation to pay the bills. In the grand scheme, it's not that much. Just pay the bills and move on.
The contract becomes void if perpetrated in fraud and with nondisclosure. The executive branch can nullify the contract by proving no consent. No consent means no contract. The district judges act as magistrates enforcing their orders pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code (maritime/admiralty law) and under color of The United States Constitution (Supreme Law of the Land). SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over maritime/admiralty law subject matters like contracts with the acknowledgement of The Constitution being supreme pursuant to Article III, Section 2, Paragraphs 1-2 and Article VI, Paragraph 2.
Can the judiciary branch usurp the powers of the legislative branch by subjecting the executive branch to orders under color of law? The legal precedent of Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 states an emphatic NO: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." The activist judges enforce their orders or injunctions as quasi-laws in violation of their oaths as Article III judges and Article VI.
Of course the broader concern here are lower courts holding the administration hostage and SCOTUS refusing to stop it. Personally I view this as an impending and very genuine constitutional crisis that threatens to undermine all that the President wants to accomplish.
The most troublesome element is all the rumors and signs of impropriety with certain members of the court. If some of these members are compromised, clandestine means of resolution are required.
And given several examples of utterly inexplicable rulings from the Trump-nominated justices over the past several years, it's difficult for me to not believe they're all compromised in some fashion.
SCOTUS didn't stop Executive from cutting foreign aid, they just pointed out that foreign aid or not.... a signed and executed contract for work can't be rug-pulled on payment because the money is "foreign aid."
Doing so is fraught with public opinion peril. While the president is immune from criminality for all official acts,Impeachment is the only remedy to address such perceived improper acts. While impeachment for defying SCOTUS decisions is unlikely here, do you really want to open this can of worms?
Jeff Childers does an analysis of the decision here. I don't fully understand all the legal nuances he describes, but the gist of it is that the situation isn't exactly the way the media wants us to believe. They portray this as a Trump loss, but in reality it is setting him up to win by creating a bunch of legal hurdles for Judge Ali to trip over.
I know people are disappointed with the ruling. But this wasn’t the right case to use to set the proper precedent. There will be another that can be used to bitch slap those liberal judges.
It has to be done all within the limits of the law or it can all be undone later. The ruling by SCOTUS is not as bad as people are making it out to be.
It's time to smoke out the traitors. There's accusations against Roberts and Barrett.....I have to think a FISA is already in place on all of the supremes.
From the "Bayou Renaissance Man" blog today:
Thursday, March 6, 2025 An interesting SCOTUS ruling
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled that a judge's order forcing the Trump administration to pay about $2 billion in foreign aid that it had "frozen". This is interesting from a number of perspectives.
Firstly, the funds concerned are owed to parties (contractors, NGO's and other agencies) for work that had already been completed. They weren't for projects that have yet to be begun, or work that has not yet been undertaken. I can see the sense in that. No matter whether one agrees with the politics of the former Biden administration or not, if it committed those funds to pay for those contracts and the work was carried out as agreed, then it should be paid for. The ruling does not force the Trump administration to undertake, or authorize, or pay for, any more such projects.
Second, the ruling does not address one of the Trump administration's key issues: whether or not a single district court judge can issue a ruling binding the administration in every district, in every State of the Union. Surely a district court's powers extend only to the district concerned? SCOTUS did not rule on this (to the stated displeasure of four SCOTUS justices, let it be said). This leaves that question open to further consideration. Should that be by SCOTUS, or by new legislation passed by Congress and the Senate to be signed by President Trump? Who can make that determination?
Third, agencies, NGO's and others that have depended on US government aid until now have to seriously re-evaluate their work going forward. They now know they can't rely on a "bottomless cup" of largesse from the United States. They're either going to have to get assurances on a project-by-project case that the income will be there to support it, or they're going to have to put all such projects on hold unless and until a new modus operandi can be worked out with regard to funding. Already some major charities and NGO's have furloughed or laid off large proportions of their workforces. Expect that to continue.
Needless to say, I don't like the SCOTUS ruling: but I believe in the rule of law. This one might be distasteful to me, but I can't argue with its basic rationale; that you pay for the completed work for which you contracted. The Trump administration may not have contracted for it, but the Biden administration did, explicitly or implicitly; therefore, the obligation exists.
Peter
Why did Amy Coney Barrett choose to vote this way? Something about her has changed drastically since her confirmation hearing. Has she or her family been threatened or doxxed?
Coverage from Trump's address showed her glaring at Trump; I was very surprised.
Then she voted against what most Americans want, with all the women on the court, plus the chief justice. Is it a coincidence that she and Roberts look like family members?
SCOTUS is not about "what people want", it's about ruling on the Constitutional aspects of law. Read the article again, the money was for programs and stuff that had already been done.
It might be distasteful but regardless, America pays its debts. Going forward, however, these payments need to stop.
“ the money was for programs and stuff that had already been done.”
But was it already done? That’s the question. They should be investigated thoroughly to determine what they spent it on.
Did you actually read the post you replied to, or are you just spreading FUD?
She was right to vote this way, and the post outlined why.
Let's put it like this: you're a new c o at a business. The previous c e o requested construction on a building and the work was done.
They submit a bill. Now you say Hey, we're trying to cut costs, so we're just not gonna pay you.
So there may be some other mitigating factors, service may be something that we didn't like to be provided, but you the customer already agreed to pay the price.
Now I don't know about you, but I was taught to always fulfill obligations, especially when service has already been rendered. Not paying ypur bills s a big, no, no. As long as it wasn't for something illegal, there's a moral and legal obligation to pay the bills. In the grand scheme, it's not that much. Just pay the bills and move on.
When did her kids come from Haiti? Asking for a friend.
Good Question!! Let's ask Jeffrey Eps... Ummm
Aren't they ignoring themselves ?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/02/regarding_the_president_s_power_to_manage_the_government_the_supreme_court_has_spoken.html
So we act like Biden? How does that look?
Indeed. A very, very slippery slope.
Of course the broader concern here are lower courts holding the administration hostage and SCOTUS refusing to stop it. Personally I view this as an impending and very genuine constitutional crisis that threatens to undermine all that the President wants to accomplish.
The most troublesome element is all the rumors and signs of impropriety with certain members of the court. If some of these members are compromised, clandestine means of resolution are required.
And given several examples of utterly inexplicable rulings from the Trump-nominated justices over the past several years, it's difficult for me to not believe they're all compromised in some fashion.
As did Biden, precedent was set over college student loan forgivement
why not Biden did
This is such a huge misstatement on the facts.
SCOTUS didn't stop Executive from cutting foreign aid, they just pointed out that foreign aid or not.... a signed and executed contract for work can't be rug-pulled on payment because the money is "foreign aid."
This is about basic contract law at its core.
Well stated
Umm yeah get fricked Ali baba
Doing so is fraught with public opinion peril. While the president is immune from criminality for all official acts,Impeachment is the only remedy to address such perceived improper acts. While impeachment for defying SCOTUS decisions is unlikely here, do you really want to open this can of worms?
Jeff Childers does an analysis of the decision here. I don't fully understand all the legal nuances he describes, but the gist of it is that the situation isn't exactly the way the media wants us to believe. They portray this as a Trump loss, but in reality it is setting him up to win by creating a bunch of legal hurdles for Judge Ali to trip over.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/little-red-hens-thursday-march-6
I know people are disappointed with the ruling. But this wasn’t the right case to use to set the proper precedent. There will be another that can be used to bitch slap those liberal judges.
on one hand, yes. Biden did, so why not?
on the other hand, dangerous game being played.
what a stupid fucking ruling.
It has to be done all within the limits of the law or it can all be undone later. The ruling by SCOTUS is not as bad as people are making it out to be.
I'm no legal scholar, but this article made total sense to me.
Asking a legal scholar now:
So what happens to Trump if he follows Davidson's advice and ignores SCOTUS' ruling?
So much for the venerated wisdom of supreme judges. We are duped into thinking these are wise people. They're idiots.
It's time to smoke out the traitors. There's accusations against Roberts and Barrett.....I have to think a FISA is already in place on all of the supremes.