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.
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