Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Supreme Court Rules 5-4 to Maybe Allow a Single Judge to Tell the President How He Must Execute His Office
Once again Amy Coney Barrett joins liberal Chief Justice Roberts.
Overseas AIDS grifter organizations sued to have Trump turn back on the money spigot. A DC judge decided that he was now Acting President, and ordered Trump to do so. Roberts issued a stay of that order, signalling that maybe the Justices would exercise some authority over the leftwing #Resistance judges attempting to control the presidency through judicial fiat. But now the fraudster Amy Coney Barrett joins Roberts in once again joining with the three hardcore liberals to overturn that stay and order Trump to disburse the money. But it's not quite that bad -- yet. While Barrett did join Roberts and the hard-left liberals, the order removing the stay did not empower the judge to execute his original order. Rather, it seeks clarification from the judge to state specifically which monies he believes Trump must spend. He's claiming that the AIDS grifters already performed the work that "earns" them the $2 billion. The Supreme Court seems to be saying that if some work was performed, that must be compensated, but they want to know how much of the $2 billion would go to work already performed. It's not the full $2 billion, is it? So the case goes back to the lawless lower court judge, where he'll play President again and decide how much of the $2 billion Trump must spend. This does give the Supreme Court another crack at reversing his order, if he can't establish that services were already rendered or once again presumes Trump to spend the full $2 billion. I think that's the situation. While the ruling may be more limited than people at first thought, Justice Alito is "stunned" that the Court would entertain this "power grab" by a lowly district court judge. Via Disney's ABC Propaganda and Infotainment Division:A sharply divided Supreme Court on Wednesday narrowly ruled that the Trump administration must comply with a district court order and pay out nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance funds to nonprofit aid groups for work already completed on the government's behalf. The court ruled 5-4 with Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barret siding with the liberal justices. The court did not elaborate on the decision but said the district court judge should "clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines." ...I don't know. I think it's too early to hang ourselves yet, but we'll have to see. Maybe we should start putting up that noose.
Justice Samuel Alito said in his dissent that he was "stunned" by the majority's decison. "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) billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic "No," but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise," he wrote.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
First?!
Posted by: Dr. Weevil at March 05, 2025 03:57 PM (43XUo)
2
Is her cult involved?
Posted by: long night...lifted at March 05, 2025 03:57 PM (2NXcZ)
3
Damn! Never did that before. Thought sure one or two or three would slip in during the 5 seconds I was typing. Where is everybody?
Posted by: Dr. Weevil at March 05, 2025 03:58 PM (43XUo)
4
Might be time to simply not comply.
Posted by: Elton John at March 05, 2025 03:58 PM (azSra)
Posted by: Black Orchid at March 05, 2025 03:59 PM (Pv3Rg)
6
Trump should tell the grifters they can get their checks from Biden and give them Biden's home address, oh and the 5 SC judges that voted for this.
Posted by: 18-1 at March 05, 2025 03:59 PM (t0Rmr)
7
35 cents for services rendered. Done and done.
Posted by: BruceWayne at March 05, 2025 03:59 PM (MGB5H)
8
I'm not planning to hang myself. The fight continues as does prayer.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 05, 2025 03:59 PM (42Vb+)
9
Supreme Court Rules 5-4 to Maybe Allow a Single Judge to Tell the President How He Must Execute His Office
__________________
FFS.
Now I won't vote for the judge. Nosir.
__________________
FFS.
Now I won't vote for the judge. Nosir.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 05, 2025 03:59 PM (YqDXo)
10
Top 13?!?
Posted by: Grayman27 at March 05, 2025 03:59 PM (pgwxJ)
11
This does give the Supreme Court another crack at reversing his order, if he can't establish that services were already rendered or once again presumes Trump to spend the full $2 billion.
I think that's the situation.
=======
There's the added wrinkle that the order says, explicitly, that the issues need to be worked out in the preliminary injunction process (which is ongoing).
Essentially telling him that the PI needs to be much tighter than his slapdash TRO (the judge was installed 90 days ago or so).
So, Alito went fire on the merits. The majority wrote an order based on procedure.
And we're kind of...back to where we were of Trump largely ignoring calls to turn the money spigot back on while judges preen for their audiences.
I think that's the situation.
=======
There's the added wrinkle that the order says, explicitly, that the issues need to be worked out in the preliminary injunction process (which is ongoing).
Essentially telling him that the PI needs to be much tighter than his slapdash TRO (the judge was installed 90 days ago or so).
So, Alito went fire on the merits. The majority wrote an order based on procedure.
And we're kind of...back to where we were of Trump largely ignoring calls to turn the money spigot back on while judges preen for their audiences.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (GBKbO)
Posted by: 18-1 at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (t0Rmr)
13
Any federal judge has the power to dictate to the President.
Says so right there in the Constitution.
Says so right there in the Constitution.
Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (/lPRQ)
14
Coming up next: a judge deems that Trump lost the 2024 election and demands Kamala Harris be sworn in as President.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (w+hdv)
15
I think it's too early to hang ourselves yet, but we'll have to see. Maybe we should start putting up that noose.
_______________
We're not the ones who should hang.
_______________
We're not the ones who should hang.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (YqDXo)
16
Coming up next: a judge deems that Trump lost the 2024 election and demands Kamala Harris be sworn in as President.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (w+hdv)
____________
President for Life.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (w+hdv)
____________
President for Life.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 05, 2025 04:01 PM (YqDXo)
17
While the ruling may be more limited than people at first thought, Justice Alito is "stunned" that the Court would entertain this "power grab" by a lowly district court judge.
========
Because the DC Circuit doesn't have jurisdiction and SCOTUS should have canned the whole thing by saying so.
But, I saw another wrinkle that I hadn't thought about:
SCOTUS not wanting to set precedent that TROs were appealable. Yeah, we want them ended in this case, but they're never going to go away completely without major changes to the third branch of government, and SCOTUS is acting like TROs will remain in the future. If they do remain, SCOTUS doesn't want to be brought in on every TRO question.
========
Because the DC Circuit doesn't have jurisdiction and SCOTUS should have canned the whole thing by saying so.
But, I saw another wrinkle that I hadn't thought about:
SCOTUS not wanting to set precedent that TROs were appealable. Yeah, we want them ended in this case, but they're never going to go away completely without major changes to the third branch of government, and SCOTUS is acting like TROs will remain in the future. If they do remain, SCOTUS doesn't want to be brought in on every TRO question.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (GBKbO)
18
The best thing is for Trump to pick a ruling - any ruling - and openly defy it. Loudly, publicly and intensely. Do whatever they say not do, and do it twice.
That'll be then of his problems with these gay fags. They're powerless to defy a rampant President and they all damn well know it.
That'll be then of his problems with these gay fags. They're powerless to defy a rampant President and they all damn well know it.
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (BI5O2)
19
Roberts is a coward
Posted by: It's me donna at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (VE6XX)
20
Any federal traffic court judge has the power to dictate to the President.
Says so right there in the Constitution.
Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (/lPRQ)
Says so right there in the Constitution.
Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (/lPRQ)
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (YqDXo)
21
Roberts has less spine than a jelly fish, hence his, "No, send it back and let the lower court deal with it" nonsense.
Roberts is hoping he won't have to make the correct ruling thereby incurring the wrath of the left.
Roberts is hoping he won't have to make the correct ruling thereby incurring the wrath of the left.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (tT6L1)
22
I’ve said it before, but: the only way Trump will be successful in shrinking the size of the government is by ignoring the courts. They’ve seized far too much power. This isn’t even an action they have a right to review.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (l3YAf)
23
SCOTUS: The Spice MUST Flow
Posted by: AnonyBotymousDrivel at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (aXxgO)
24
The end of his problems, I mean.
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (BI5O2)
25
The ruling was a classic example of lets let this stuff work it's way through the lower courts to get an actual ruling before SCOTUS jumps in. Once the appelate court rules then I suspect SCOTUS will jump back in.
Posted by: Mister Scott (Formerly GWS) at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (e5NfL)
26
>>> don't know. I think it's too early to hang ourselves yet, but we'll have to see. Maybe we should start putting up that noose.
=====
At least start tying the knot?
=====
At least start tying the knot?
Posted by: Turn 2 at March 05, 2025 04:03 PM (JfxgE)
27
>>> He's claiming that the AIDS grifters already performed the work that "earns" them the $2 billion.
This is not how grants work.
Grant is money first... then maybe something something....
Supplies and service contracts are work first, then money. It's right there in the FAR.
This is not how grants work.
Grant is money first... then maybe something something....
Supplies and service contracts are work first, then money. It's right there in the FAR.
Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at March 05, 2025 04:03 PM (/lPRQ)
28
Roberts to trump: what do you think you are the president or something?
Posted by: BruceWayne at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (MGB5H)
29
Good job on Amy Conehead Barrett Trump.
When the time comes up again...be more careful
Posted by: 18-1 at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (t0Rmr)
She was a “diversity” hire. Replace a female with a female.
When the time comes up again...be more careful
Posted by: 18-1 at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (t0Rmr)
She was a “diversity” hire. Replace a female with a female.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (l3YAf)
30
So I guess it will come down to the judge vs the admin on determining whether "work" was performed.
I wonder if the AIDS group shows a work order and a check disbursement for a $2b condom, then I guess we have to pay them?
I wonder if the AIDS group shows a work order and a check disbursement for a $2b condom, then I guess we have to pay them?
Posted by: Chuck Martel at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (iPNK0)
31
Trump should tell the grifters they can get their checks from Biden and give them Biden's home address, oh and the 5 SC judges that voted for this.
Posted by: 18-1 at March 05, 2025 03:59 PM (t0Rmr)
_______________
He should also place a whacking great tax on Truvada. See how the fruits like that.
Posted by: 18-1 at March 05, 2025 03:59 PM (t0Rmr)
_______________
He should also place a whacking great tax on Truvada. See how the fruits like that.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (YqDXo)
32
I read somewhere that the easiest thing to do would be to end USAID, which was created by EO and can be erased by EO.
If this is true, problem solved.
If this is true, problem solved.
Posted by: ChristyBlinkyTheGreat at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (6PCLE)
33
28 Roberts to trump: what do you think you are the president or something?
Posted by: BruceWayne at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (MGB5H)
======
More like, Roberts to Ali: "You know judging requires work, right?"
Posted by: BruceWayne at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (MGB5H)
======
More like, Roberts to Ali: "You know judging requires work, right?"
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (GBKbO)
34
>>>I think it's too early to hang ourselves yet, but we'll have to see.
I'm just gonna hang around over here, then.
I'm just gonna hang around over here, then.
Posted by: Zombie David Carradine at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (i24o9)
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM (6epxM)
36
Lots of comments and back and forth about this in the earlier threads.
My take is that the majority opinion is unusual in how it handles the existing TRO -- which it did not vacate -- and the deadlines for payment set forth in the TRO.
Usually, if an appeals court wants a lower court to revisit a TRO (or any order), it vacates the existing order and then directs the lower court to enter another one consistent with the appeals court's directives.
The SC majority didn't do that here. Which is odd. I think the majority was buying time, knowing this will be back in front of an appeals court soon.
I also think Alito over-reacted to the majority's decision. He acted like the majority ordered Trump to pay. The majority did no such thing. Alito obviously knows that. I think his dissent was a shot across the bow, and battlespace prep for when this comes back to the SC on the merits.
Overall: an odd, ambiguous ruling by the majority.
My take is that the majority opinion is unusual in how it handles the existing TRO -- which it did not vacate -- and the deadlines for payment set forth in the TRO.
Usually, if an appeals court wants a lower court to revisit a TRO (or any order), it vacates the existing order and then directs the lower court to enter another one consistent with the appeals court's directives.
The SC majority didn't do that here. Which is odd. I think the majority was buying time, knowing this will be back in front of an appeals court soon.
I also think Alito over-reacted to the majority's decision. He acted like the majority ordered Trump to pay. The majority did no such thing. Alito obviously knows that. I think his dissent was a shot across the bow, and battlespace prep for when this comes back to the SC on the merits.
Overall: an odd, ambiguous ruling by the majority.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM (iFTx/)
37
I wonder if the AIDS group shows a work order and a check disbursement for a $2b condom, then I guess we have to pay them?
Posted by: Chuck Martel at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (iPNK0)
_____________
Condom?? As if! If they used condoms, they wouldn't have AIDS. They're more likely to buy $2 bn worth of Truvada.
Posted by: Chuck Martel at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (iPNK0)
_____________
Condom?? As if! If they used condoms, they wouldn't have AIDS. They're more likely to buy $2 bn worth of Truvada.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM (YqDXo)
38
Forgot to add, when you see President Trump shaking the hands of SCOTUS, ole Amy looks nervous.
She should as she is a traitor.
She should as she is a traitor.
Posted by: ChristyBlinkyTheGreat at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM (6PCLE)
39
I think it's too early to hang ourselves yet, but we'll have to see.
I'm just gonna hang around over here, then.
----------
Me too.
I'm just gonna hang around over here, then.
----------
Me too.
Posted by: Michael Hutchence at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (azSra)
40
36 Overall: an odd, ambiguous ruling by the majority.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM (iFTx/)
======
False.
Light your hair.
Do it now.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM (iFTx/)
======
False.
Light your hair.
Do it now.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (GBKbO)
41
More like, Roberts to Ali: "You know judging requires work, right?"
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (GBKbO)
Stop putting your facts in the way of my funnies!
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (GBKbO)
Stop putting your facts in the way of my funnies!
Posted by: BruceWayne at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (MGB5H)
42
The ruling was a classic example of lets let this stuff work it's way through the lower courts to get an actual ruling before SCOTUS jumps in. Once the appelate court rules then I suspect SCOTUS will jump back in.
Posted by: Mister Scott (Formerly GWS) at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (e5NfL)
Where in the Constitution does it say that the courts have any authority to impose this dilatory, bureaucratic process onto every action of the President?
Posted by: Mister Scott (Formerly GWS) at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (e5NfL)
Where in the Constitution does it say that the courts have any authority to impose this dilatory, bureaucratic process onto every action of the President?
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (l3YAf)
43
Amy is the unpopular nerdy girl who wants to be in with the Mean Girl Crowd.
Hence, the wish washy BS.
I hope the next Justice is Mark Levin.
Hence, the wish washy BS.
I hope the next Justice is Mark Levin.
Posted by: Czech Chick at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (vK/Ja)
44
Maybe we need a law that says No Hawaiians in the Judiciary?
Posted by: Pudinhead at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (pLaQB)
45
It's annoying, that they didn't deal with the actual issue.
But then Roberts and ACB still have this idiotic notion that "judges will do the right thing."
Despite their entire job being "because judges don't do the right thing."
But then Roberts and ACB still have this idiotic notion that "judges will do the right thing."
Despite their entire job being "because judges don't do the right thing."
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (wDiNp)
46
and so it continues
Posted by: that guy that always thinks it's continuing at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (jc0TO)
47
First, we kill the judges.
To paraphrase Shakespeare.
To paraphrase Shakespeare.
Posted by: From about That Time at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (n4GiU)
48
"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) billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic "No," but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise," he wrote.
Fine. How many divisions does the lower court judge control?
Fine. How many divisions does the lower court judge control?
Posted by: rickb223 at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (3oPA9)
49
Oh, so this is what TJM and others were arguing about earlier.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (77rzZ)
50
41 More like, Roberts to Ali: "You know judging requires work, right?"
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (GBKbO)
Stop putting your facts in the way of my funnies!
Posted by: BruceWayne at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (MGB5H)
=======
Roberts sucks and should have done better.
But his order is directed entirely at Ali being bad at being a judge.
Alito is kind of off on a tangent that will eventually collide with SCOTUS's work on this case.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (GBKbO)
Stop putting your facts in the way of my funnies!
Posted by: BruceWayne at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (MGB5H)
=======
Roberts sucks and should have done better.
But his order is directed entirely at Ali being bad at being a judge.
Alito is kind of off on a tangent that will eventually collide with SCOTUS's work on this case.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (GBKbO)
51
Hmm, telling the NGO to "show their work" is an interesting idea.
Because that means the NGO needs to account for the cash and where it went.
Now, up front disclosure, my experience with grants is limited.Having been through an audit of various grants, grants tend to be very narrowly written and if you go outside the lines, that's a big no no.
Because that means the NGO needs to account for the cash and where it went.
Now, up front disclosure, my experience with grants is limited.Having been through an audit of various grants, grants tend to be very narrowly written and if you go outside the lines, that's a big no no.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (tT6L1)
52
btw, Rep. Byron Donalds cooked today, as the kids say.
Mr Donalds made all the supposed "mayors" look like Foo's!
btw, Rep. Byron Donalds cooked today, as the kids say.
Mr Donalds made all the supposed "mayors" look like Foo's!
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (6epxM)
53
>>>Once again Amy Coney Barrett joins liberal Chief Justice Roberts.
She smiled very prettily at PDT at his entrance last night.
She smiled very prettily at PDT at his entrance last night.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (CQE5S)
54
First, we kill the judges.
To paraphrase Shakespeare.
Posted by: From about That Time
Well, they ARE lawyers.
To paraphrase Shakespeare.
Posted by: From about That Time
Well, they ARE lawyers.
Posted by: rickb223 at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (3oPA9)
55
How likely is it for ACB and Roberts to go oh wait on second thought never mind. We will overrule ourselves. Ain’t happening.
This sets a horrible fucking precedent. Every district judge will now be telling Trump what he is allowed to spend or cut.
Can someone please cut off the funding to Federalist Society? Thats who gave us ACB and Roberts.
This sets a horrible fucking precedent. Every district judge will now be telling Trump what he is allowed to spend or cut.
Can someone please cut off the funding to Federalist Society? Thats who gave us ACB and Roberts.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (/BeiT)
56
Good job on Amy Conehead Barrett Trump.
When the time comes up again...be more careful
Posted by: 18-1 at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (t0Rmr)
She was a “diversity” hire. Replace a female with a female.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (l3YAf)
I'm right here, you guys.
When the time comes up again...be more careful
Posted by: 18-1 at March 05, 2025 04:00 PM (t0Rmr)
She was a “diversity” hire. Replace a female with a female.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:04 PM (l3YAf)
I'm right here, you guys.
Posted by: Chief Justice It's a Tax Roberts Ackbar at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (i24o9)
Posted by: ... at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (bvit7)
58
Time for Trump to end SCOTUS. Have DOGE cut off their funding and fire their support personnel. We do not need the highest court in the land acting in an unconstitutional manner.
Posted by: Diabeetus at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (FEAjO)
59
Roberts is hoping he won't have to make the correct ruling thereby incurring the wrath of the left.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (tT6L1)
_____________
Why does he care? He's not running for re-election.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:02 PM (tT6L1)
_____________
Why does he care? He's not running for re-election.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (YqDXo)
60
She was a “diversity” hire. Replace a female with a female.
----------
This one probably even knows what a woman is, but is still useless.
----------
This one probably even knows what a woman is, but is still useless.
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:08 PM (azSra)
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:08 PM (6epxM)
62
47 First, we kill the judges.
To paraphrase Shakespeare.
Posted by: From about That Time at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (n4GiU)
It's ALL the judges, IIRC.
To paraphrase Shakespeare.
Posted by: From about That Time at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (n4GiU)
It's ALL the judges, IIRC.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:08 PM (CQE5S)
63
Amy Comey Jarrett
Posted by: ... at March 05, 2025 04:08 PM (bvit7)
64
The blackmail material on Roberts in particular must be sizable. Hanging may become the law of the land if the judiciary continues on this path, though.
Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder at March 05, 2025 04:08 PM (MZ+PY)
65
Amy Bony Carrot
Posted by: ... at March 05, 2025 04:08 PM (bvit7)
66
Hmm, telling the NGO to "show their work" is an interesting idea.
Because that means the NGO needs to account for the cash and where it went.
Now, up front disclosure, my experience with grants is limited.Having been through an audit of various grants, grants tend to be very narrowly written and if you go outside the lines, that's a big no no.
Posted by: blake
And grants aren't congresionally mandated expenditures.
Because that means the NGO needs to account for the cash and where it went.
Now, up front disclosure, my experience with grants is limited.Having been through an audit of various grants, grants tend to be very narrowly written and if you go outside the lines, that's a big no no.
Posted by: blake
And grants aren't congresionally mandated expenditures.
Posted by: rickb223 at March 05, 2025 04:08 PM (3oPA9)
67
55 How likely is it for ACB and Roberts to go oh wait on second thought never mind. We will overrule ourselves. Ain’t happening.
This sets a horrible fucking precedent. Every district judge will now be telling Trump what he is allowed to spend or cut.
Can someone please cut off the funding to Federalist Society? Thats who gave us ACB and Roberts.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (/BeiT)
=======
I suggest you read the actual order. It's 193 words long and here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/
24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf
Please explain the precedent in that order without referring to Alito's dissent.
This sets a horrible fucking precedent. Every district judge will now be telling Trump what he is allowed to spend or cut.
Can someone please cut off the funding to Federalist Society? Thats who gave us ACB and Roberts.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (/BeiT)
=======
I suggest you read the actual order. It's 193 words long and here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/
24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf
Please explain the precedent in that order without referring to Alito's dissent.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:08 PM (GBKbO)
68
After last night, do any of you still think Trump will go, "well, some unelected, far-left, deep-blue judge said I had to waste billions of taxpayer money on really stupid shit so my hands are tied--write the check."
Or is his most likely response going to be "no, I don't think I will."
They have the courts. They have the media.
Trump has the People.
Bet accordingly.
Or is his most likely response going to be "no, I don't think I will."
They have the courts. They have the media.
Trump has the People.
Bet accordingly.
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (wDiNp)
69
The very obvious reason this case should have been booted is lack of jurisdiction. Contract claims against the federal government are supposed to go to the Court of Federal Claims under 28 USC 1491. This is a specialized court created for the specific purpose of deciding contract and other non-tort claims against the federal government. Alito makes reference to the jurisdiction issue and is 100% correct. Courts cannot just issue orders over random disputes they have no jurisdiction over. I hope the Trump Admin is making a motion to transfer the case to the Court of Federal Claims. If tranferred they would probably get a less politicized judge.
It truly looks like amateur hour at the Supreme Court. I would not be surprised if Roberts did this because Trump appeared to thank Roberts at the SOTU for allowing DOGE to do its work. Roberts has to prove to Trump and all his phony liberal pals that he is not going to help Trump no matter if he has to ignore every law in the books. What a dickhead.
It truly looks like amateur hour at the Supreme Court. I would not be surprised if Roberts did this because Trump appeared to thank Roberts at the SOTU for allowing DOGE to do its work. Roberts has to prove to Trump and all his phony liberal pals that he is not going to help Trump no matter if he has to ignore every law in the books. What a dickhead.
Posted by: Paladin at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (3u7Un)
70
First, we kill the judges.
To paraphrase Shakespeare.
Posted by: From about That Time at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (n4GiU)
Amish Dude?
To paraphrase Shakespeare.
Posted by: From about That Time at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (n4GiU)
Amish Dude?
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (i24o9)
71
>>> Forgot to add, when you see President Trump shaking the hands of SCOTUS, ole Amy looks nervous.
She should as she is a traitor.
Posted by: ChristyBlinkyTheGreat at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM (6PCLE)
=====
Yes, but did you see her notepad was blank? /s
She should as she is a traitor.
Posted by: ChristyBlinkyTheGreat at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM (6PCLE)
=====
Yes, but did you see her notepad was blank? /s
Posted by: Turn 2 at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (JfxgE)
72
TJM is this the same case where guvamint axed for the case to be moved to the Court of Claims, as it involves contract issues? That seems to be a tidy categorical solution to it all. Well, not to the lawless idiocy of the judiciary in general, and the ridiculous chaotic usurpations of the inferior courts, but you know what I mean.
And probably already noted, re last ace post, but "swift sword of American justice"??? Huh? KSM. Captured in .... 2002? Something like that. Still breathing at Gitmo. I guess the statement was meant to include "for some definitions of 'swift'".
And probably already noted, re last ace post, but "swift sword of American justice"??? Huh? KSM. Captured in .... 2002? Something like that. Still breathing at Gitmo. I guess the statement was meant to include "for some definitions of 'swift'".
Posted by: rhomboid at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (1m82a)
73
There's a very good chance PDT will get to nominate another SCJ and hoo boy is that going to be a show.
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (vFG9F)
74
The blackmail material on Roberts in particular must be sizable. Hanging may become the law of the land if the judiciary continues on this path, though.
Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder
The adoption papers of his sons are hinkey.
Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder
The adoption papers of his sons are hinkey.
Posted by: rickb223 at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (3oPA9)
Posted by: Voter theater. at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (0XVbr)
76
But then Roberts and ACB still have this idiotic notion that "judges will do the right thing."
_______________
So when are they going to start doing that?
_______________
So when are they going to start doing that?
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (YqDXo)
77
Amy Comey Jarrett
Posted by: ... at March 05, 2025 04:08 PM (bvit7)
And the Truth in Mocking award goes to...
Posted by: ... at March 05, 2025 04:08 PM (bvit7)
And the Truth in Mocking award goes to...
Posted by: Beutz Ahnhdugraand at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (dzZCL)
78
Why does he care? He's not running for re-election.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (YqDXo)
------------
Weirdos with guns going for Justices and protests in front of the houses of Supreme Court Justices may have had the desired effect.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (YqDXo)
------------
Weirdos with guns going for Justices and protests in front of the houses of Supreme Court Justices may have had the desired effect.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (tT6L1)
79
Not a single state voted for gay marriage.
Posted by: ... at March 05, 2025 04:10 PM (bvit7)
80
She smiled very prettily at PDT at his entrance last night.
Posted by: m
I would definitely...you know.
Posted by: m
I would definitely...you know.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:10 PM (77rzZ)
81
Overall: an odd, ambiguous ruling by the majority.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM (iFTx/)
======
False.
Light your hair.
Do it now.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (GBKbO)
_______
I have long hair, ya know. Another wrinkle is that I think the corrupt dickstrict court revising the TRO into what will probably be a preliminary injunction will clear the way for the circuit appeals court to hear the first appeal. The circuit court declined to hear the appeal from the TRO on the grounds it doesn't hear appeals from TROs.
But next time, the circuit will be able to hear it -- and thus the SC might not have to do anything, depending on how the circuit rules. The problem may go away for the SC. That's what I think is going on, and why they're "buying time" as I said above.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM (iFTx/)
======
False.
Light your hair.
Do it now.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:06 PM (GBKbO)
_______
I have long hair, ya know. Another wrinkle is that I think the corrupt dickstrict court revising the TRO into what will probably be a preliminary injunction will clear the way for the circuit appeals court to hear the first appeal. The circuit court declined to hear the appeal from the TRO on the grounds it doesn't hear appeals from TROs.
But next time, the circuit will be able to hear it -- and thus the SC might not have to do anything, depending on how the circuit rules. The problem may go away for the SC. That's what I think is going on, and why they're "buying time" as I said above.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:10 PM (iFTx/)
82
Paladin I think such a motion (Court of Claims) was already made, in one of the cases, I thought this one.
Posted by: rhomboid at March 05, 2025 04:10 PM (1m82a)
Posted by: ... at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (bvit7)
84
There's a very good chance PDT will get to nominate another SCJ and hoo boy is that going to be a show.
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (vFG9F)
_______________
I keep sending Sotomayor cheesecakes, so I'm doing my part.
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (vFG9F)
_______________
I keep sending Sotomayor cheesecakes, so I'm doing my part.
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (YqDXo)
85
I fucking HATE when Democrats put on the ashes.
I give no shit about Catlick practices, really. But I don't like seeing Democrats pretend they are any sort of Christian.
I fucking HATE when Democrats put on the ashes.
I give no shit about Catlick practices, really. But I don't like seeing Democrats pretend they are any sort of Christian.
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (6epxM)
86
Eo 66 (rough draft)
"The Constitution gives all executive power to the President.
The Supreme Court and inferior courts are not granted a veto power. (Insert Federalist quotes about being the weakest branch) the supreme Court has recognized this in times past, instructing inferior courts to avoid questions of politics (insert Marbury v Madison quote).
Due to this the whole of the Executive branch are instructed to follow the counsel of their appointed officers in questions about the execution of their duties.
The opinions of the courts will be reviewed and given all due consideration, though the final decision is always the presidents.
Suck it Roberts!
DJT"
"The Constitution gives all executive power to the President.
The Supreme Court and inferior courts are not granted a veto power. (Insert Federalist quotes about being the weakest branch) the supreme Court has recognized this in times past, instructing inferior courts to avoid questions of politics (insert Marbury v Madison quote).
Due to this the whole of the Executive branch are instructed to follow the counsel of their appointed officers in questions about the execution of their duties.
The opinions of the courts will be reviewed and given all due consideration, though the final decision is always the presidents.
Suck it Roberts!
DJT"
Posted by: HowardDevore at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (H/Jxx)
87
Hmm, telling the NGO to "show their work" is an interesting idea.
Because that means the NGO needs to account for the cash and where it went.
Now, up front disclosure, my experience with grants is limited. Having been through an audit of various grants, grants tend to be very narrowly written and if you go outside the lines, that's a big no no.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (tT6L1)
----
It only becomes a problem if you get caught.
Because that means the NGO needs to account for the cash and where it went.
Now, up front disclosure, my experience with grants is limited. Having been through an audit of various grants, grants tend to be very narrowly written and if you go outside the lines, that's a big no no.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (tT6L1)
----
It only becomes a problem if you get caught.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (7fElN)
88
The only thing I can figure is that ACB has been compromised by the Six Ways From Sunday crowd.
Posted by: p-squared at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (0prFs)
89
Faggot Lovers, here is the Byron Donalds clip alluded to above:
Is Byron Daniels gay? Not sure what the comment had to do with the clip.
Is Byron Daniels gay? Not sure what the comment had to do with the clip.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (42Vb+)
90
Barrett's only use was in getting rid of Roe.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (77rzZ)
91
72 TJM is this the same case where guvamint axed for the case to be moved to the Court of Claims, as it involves contract issues? That seems to be a tidy categorical solution to it all. Well, not to the lawless idiocy of the judiciary in general, and the ridiculous chaotic usurpations of the inferior courts, but you know what I mean.
And probably already noted, re last ace post, but "swift sword of American justice"??? Huh? KSM. Captured in .... 2002? Something like that. Still breathing at Gitmo. I guess the statement was meant to include "for some definitions of 'swift'".
Posted by: rhomboid at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (1m82a)
========
What I understand of DOJ's maneuvers is that they were challenging, not the TRO itself, to know which payments to make or not based on Ali's order.
They seemingly tried to shortcut the appealable PI before it started. But all we have is SCOTUS saying, "Ali, figure out the payments."
And probably already noted, re last ace post, but "swift sword of American justice"??? Huh? KSM. Captured in .... 2002? Something like that. Still breathing at Gitmo. I guess the statement was meant to include "for some definitions of 'swift'".
Posted by: rhomboid at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (1m82a)
========
What I understand of DOJ's maneuvers is that they were challenging, not the TRO itself, to know which payments to make or not based on Ali's order.
They seemingly tried to shortcut the appealable PI before it started. But all we have is SCOTUS saying, "Ali, figure out the payments."
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (GBKbO)
92
Please explain the precedent in that order without referring to Alito's dissent.
—
I’m going on a limb here and say Alito knows more about this stuff than anyone here. So I will defer to his pinion.
—
I’m going on a limb here and say Alito knows more about this stuff than anyone here. So I will defer to his pinion.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
93
Amateur judges...
Amateur results
Amateur results
Posted by: Buutz Ahn d' Graund at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (dzZCL)
94
My guess is that the USSC wants as many rogue judges as possible to pop up and hand down their unconstitutional TROs so that they can knock 'em all down at the same time. It would be understandable if by doing so, it prevents future judges from adjusting the text of their findings to weasel around precedent. Just a guess.
Posted by: mrp at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (rj6Yv)
95
79 Not a single state voted for gay marriage.
--------------------
But when CA voters said 'no' to gay marriage the courts went into overdrive to disappear that message from the people.
--------------------
But when CA voters said 'no' to gay marriage the courts went into overdrive to disappear that message from the people.
Posted by: Pudinhead at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (pLaQB)
96
it will soon be time to go all Andrew Jackson on SCOTUS' ass.
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (ynpvh)
97
I fucking HATE when Democrats put on the ashes.
I give no shit about Catlick practices, really. But I don't like seeing Democrats pretend they are any sort of Christian.
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (6epxM)
---
It's another form of virtue signaling--literally.
"See? I'm more virtuous than thou!"
I give no shit about Catlick practices, really. But I don't like seeing Democrats pretend they are any sort of Christian.
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (6epxM)
---
It's another form of virtue signaling--literally.
"See? I'm more virtuous than thou!"
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (7fElN)
98
I suggest you read the actual order. It's 193 words long and here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/
24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf
Please explain the precedent in that order without referring to Alito's dissent.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:08 PM (GBKbO)
----------------
Hmm, Roberts appears to be telling the Court they need to actually allow litigation and not just hand out TRO's like candy.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/
24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf
Please explain the precedent in that order without referring to Alito's dissent.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:08 PM (GBKbO)
----------------
Hmm, Roberts appears to be telling the Court they need to actually allow litigation and not just hand out TRO's like candy.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (tT6L1)
99
81 But next time, the circuit will be able to hear it -- and thus the SC might not have to do anything, depending on how the circuit rules. The problem may go away for the SC. That's what I think is going on, and why they're "buying time" as I said above.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:10 PM (iFTx/)
=======
And all the while, Trump does what he's been doing: not paying out monies even when courts are throwing fits in TROs.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:10 PM (iFTx/)
=======
And all the while, Trump does what he's been doing: not paying out monies even when courts are throwing fits in TROs.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (GBKbO)
100
>>> There's a very good chance PDT will get to nominate another SCJ and hoo boy is that going to be a show.
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (vFG9F)
=====
Unless we get the conservative version (possibly redundant) of the Dread Pirate Roberts...color me skeptical.
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (vFG9F)
=====
Unless we get the conservative version (possibly redundant) of the Dread Pirate Roberts...color me skeptical.
Posted by: Turn 2 at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (JfxgE)
101
Now we know for sure which SC justices are on the payroll.
Posted by: Earl Schlobodowicz at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (P7Iz+)
102
Weirdos with guns going for Justices and protests in front of the houses of Supreme Court Justices may have had the desired effect.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (tT6L1)
_______________
cc: U.S. Marshals
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:09 PM (tT6L1)
_______________
cc: U.S. Marshals
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (YqDXo)
103
So elections have consequences.....but only in one direction. Antonin Scalia's totally naturally-caused death sure did.
Posted by: Gary R at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (36OLy)
104
Trump in not DEI, but he does appoint a lot of women. Maybe some are qualified, maybe some are not.
ACB -- Bondi, Brooke Rollins - Secretary of Agriculture, Kristi Noem - Homeland, Susie Wiles - White House Chief of Staff, Elise Stefanik - Ambassador to UN, Tulsi - DNI, Karoline Leavitt, Janette Nesheiwat - surgeon general, Linda McMahon ... probably others.
ACB -- Bondi, Brooke Rollins - Secretary of Agriculture, Kristi Noem - Homeland, Susie Wiles - White House Chief of Staff, Elise Stefanik - Ambassador to UN, Tulsi - DNI, Karoline Leavitt, Janette Nesheiwat - surgeon general, Linda McMahon ... probably others.
Posted by: illiniwek at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (Cus5s)
105
>> Courts cannot just issue orders over random disputes they have no jurisdiction over.
Precisely. The lower court had no jurisdiction over this matter. Alito is 100% correct on that for many reasons. Entertaining this the way Roberts and ACB did is nothing but legal masturbation without any payoff. Why ask a lower court to provide specifics on matters over which they have no authority or jurisdiction?
Precisely. The lower court had no jurisdiction over this matter. Alito is 100% correct on that for many reasons. Entertaining this the way Roberts and ACB did is nothing but legal masturbation without any payoff. Why ask a lower court to provide specifics on matters over which they have no authority or jurisdiction?
Posted by: Marcus T at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (jBtak)
106
You get to see the gloves off?
Posted by: Eromero at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (LHPAg)
107
92 I will defer to his pinion.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
108
92 Please explain the precedent in that order without referring to Alito's dissent.
—
I’m going on a limb here and say Alito knows more about this stuff than anyone here. So I will defer to his pinion.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
=======
Well, then since you refuse to actually make an argument yourself, perhaps you should just sit this out.
—
I’m going on a limb here and say Alito knows more about this stuff than anyone here. So I will defer to his pinion.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
=======
Well, then since you refuse to actually make an argument yourself, perhaps you should just sit this out.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (GBKbO)
109
She was giving Trump the Super Bitchy Face at the State of the Union address. Lots of scowls there. Seems like she could be a little more grateful to the guy who nominated her for the Supreme Court. Hopefully, Trump will forego diversity hires in the future...
Posted by: Mister Ghost at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (TGPs7)
110
I don't know. I think it's too early to hang ourselves yet, but we'll have to see. Maybe we should start putting up that noose.
If your hair is still unsinged, it shows a lack of commitment.
If your hair is still unsinged, it shows a lack of commitment.
Posted by: Archimedes at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (xCA6C)
111
If i hire a guy to kill ten people, and i get arrested after he's only whacked three of them, should i really expect the judge to agonize over exactly how to pro-rate my payment to the hitman?
Posted by: Warai-otoko at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (KtIIi)
112
It only becomes a problem if you get caught.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (7fElN)
-----------------
And this time around, it appears someone is looking. Which isn't the usual way it's been done.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (7fElN)
-----------------
And this time around, it appears someone is looking. Which isn't the usual way it's been done.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (tT6L1)
113
End USAid and let the NGOs sue for their money. That would take them time and money with no guarantee of success.
Posted by: High tech at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (37cEZ)
114
Seems like a time to train our junior associate DOJ drones to make everyone's life hell.
1) Have them descend on the people with the 2 billion and go through everything to find out what it was spent on and what they did.
2) make sure you harass the judge by deluge him with reports. Ask questions that require him to learn all that crap for clarifying judgements.
3) if you find ANY absurd or criminal activity start a prosecution. Tear that away from that judge, since he is too busy with the original work.
4) if by a miracle something is clean, prioritize it to the end and wait for the NGO to die of old age. Or pay it out, if you want to toss a bone.
5) Schedule for that grant to not be renewed next year, and if a part is acceptable combine it with different NGO full of MAGA. After all, Biden has made that totally acceptable.
1) Have them descend on the people with the 2 billion and go through everything to find out what it was spent on and what they did.
2) make sure you harass the judge by deluge him with reports. Ask questions that require him to learn all that crap for clarifying judgements.
3) if you find ANY absurd or criminal activity start a prosecution. Tear that away from that judge, since he is too busy with the original work.
4) if by a miracle something is clean, prioritize it to the end and wait for the NGO to die of old age. Or pay it out, if you want to toss a bone.
5) Schedule for that grant to not be renewed next year, and if a part is acceptable combine it with different NGO full of MAGA. After all, Biden has made that totally acceptable.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (n7h9X)
115
I would take this to mean that Trump cannot turn on the spigot until this judge identifies specifically every dollar that had already been spent, reports that to the supremes, and then they say okie dokie.
That should be sometime just short of forever.
That should be sometime just short of forever.
Posted by: From about That Time at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (n4GiU)
116
My guess is that the USSC wants as many rogue judges as possible to pop up and hand down their unconstitutional TROs so that they can knock 'em all down at the same time. It would be understandable if by doing so, it prevents future judges from adjusting the text of their findings to weasel around precedent. Just a guess.
Posted by: mrp at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (rj6Yv)
Roberts will come.
Posted by: mrp at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (rj6Yv)
Roberts will come.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (l3YAf)
117
But I don't like seeing Democrats pretend they are any sort of Christian.
------------
I'm the same way. Its like the Democrat playbook consists of:
* Vote to keep grown men in women's and girl's restrooms and locker-rooms
* Vote to keep the right to kill the unborn
* Defend those convicted of crimes and mourn their suffering rather than that of the victims
* Champion open-borders while living in gated communities with armed security
* Play-act as a "Christian" when there is a photo-op.
------------
I'm the same way. Its like the Democrat playbook consists of:
* Vote to keep grown men in women's and girl's restrooms and locker-rooms
* Vote to keep the right to kill the unborn
* Defend those convicted of crimes and mourn their suffering rather than that of the victims
* Champion open-borders while living in gated communities with armed security
* Play-act as a "Christian" when there is a photo-op.
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (azSra)
118
"There he is, officer. That guy in the red shirt. He stole my wallet."
"Ok, there buddy, spread'em."
"No way. I already spent that guy's money. You don't have nuttin on me now."
"Ok, there buddy, spread'em."
"No way. I already spent that guy's money. You don't have nuttin on me now."
Posted by: Orson at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (dIske)
119
Trump's first reaction should be to sue whichever "organizations" are claiming this money, and force them to account for every penny (going back years if necessary) they have ever collected from the government. Find three instances of falsified payments or overcharges, and file RICO claims against them.
Make this money the lawless junior jerk judge wants to give them the money that drives their organizations into bankruptcy.
Make this money the lawless junior jerk judge wants to give them the money that drives their organizations into bankruptcy.
Posted by: Huck Follywood at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (/VF+8)
120
Too early to hang but flicking the lighter to ignite my hair....
Posted by: steevy at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (KQk9m)
121
115 I would take this to mean that Trump cannot turn on the spigot until this judge identifies specifically every dollar that had already been spent, reports that to the supremes, and then they say okie dokie.
That should be sometime just short of forever.
Posted by: From about That Time at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (n4GiU)
========
Well, except the report to the Supremes part.
Essentially, Ali needs to write out more specific orders, and the list of damages has to come from the plaintiffs, who have never provided that list, it seems.
That should be sometime just short of forever.
Posted by: From about That Time at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (n4GiU)
========
Well, except the report to the Supremes part.
Essentially, Ali needs to write out more specific orders, and the list of damages has to come from the plaintiffs, who have never provided that list, it seems.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (GBKbO)
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (77rzZ)
123
I did good didn't I? I voted the right way this time right? Right Mom? Mom! Mommmmmm!
Posted by: Bret Kavanaugh, Momma's Boy at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (EEZHI)
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (/BeiT)
125
Roberts needs to step down, Amy is a traitor but too young we are struck with her
I hope the little Latino steps down.. her health ain’t great
I hope the little Latino steps down.. her health ain’t great
Posted by: Gonzotx at March 05, 2025 04:16 PM (nGraA)
126
Again, grants are not contracts, so the idea that grants are somehow being construed to be contracts and that somehow are obligated expenditures is ludicrous, but here we are.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at March 05, 2025 04:16 PM (1sXeU)
127
LOL
Posted by: steevy at March 05, 2025 04:16 PM (KQk9m)
128
What I understand of DOJ's maneuvers is that they were challenging, not the TRO itself, to know which payments to make or not based on Ali's order.
They seemingly tried to shortcut the appealable PI before it started. But all we have is SCOTUS saying, "Ali, figure out the payments."
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (GBKbO)
I suspect that it will be a loooooong time before any payment will be made, if ... ever.
They seemingly tried to shortcut the appealable PI before it started. But all we have is SCOTUS saying, "Ali, figure out the payments."
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (GBKbO)
I suspect that it will be a loooooong time before any payment will be made, if ... ever.
Posted by: mrp at March 05, 2025 04:16 PM (rj6Yv)
129
123 I did good didn't I? I voted the right way this time right? Right Mom? Mom! Mommmmmm!
Posted by: Bret Kavanaugh, Momma's Boy at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (EEZHI)
=======
Kavanaugh is shockingly good as a SCOTUS jurist so far.
Posted by: Bret Kavanaugh, Momma's Boy at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (EEZHI)
=======
Kavanaugh is shockingly good as a SCOTUS jurist so far.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:16 PM (GBKbO)
130
And all the while, Trump does what he's been doing: not paying out monies even when courts are throwing fits in TROs.
--------------
This is why rewarding taxpayers with a $5k is good politics. Once its spent the courts have to shut up.
--------------
This is why rewarding taxpayers with a $5k is good politics. Once its spent the courts have to shut up.
Posted by: Pudinhead at March 05, 2025 04:16 PM (pLaQB)
131
128 I suspect that it will be a loooooong time before any payment will be made, if ... ever.
Posted by: mrp at March 05, 2025 04:16 PM (rj6Yv)
=======
Wait...
I thought the SCOTUS order immediately sent a $2 billion check.
It's what I've been told.
Posted by: mrp at March 05, 2025 04:16 PM (rj6Yv)
=======
Wait...
I thought the SCOTUS order immediately sent a $2 billion check.
It's what I've been told.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:16 PM (GBKbO)
132
Overall: an odd, ambiguous ruling by the majority.
****************
This happens because the SCOTUS is too fucking chickenshit to stamp this shit down once and for all and instead have to play legal ootsie footsie let's give the lower fuckhead judges every possible opportunity to "course correct" which they never do and thus more ootsie footsie legal mumble jumble bullshit ensue
Fuck SCOTUS and Barrett can go fuck a chainsaw
****************
This happens because the SCOTUS is too fucking chickenshit to stamp this shit down once and for all and instead have to play legal ootsie footsie let's give the lower fuckhead judges every possible opportunity to "course correct" which they never do and thus more ootsie footsie legal mumble jumble bullshit ensue
Fuck SCOTUS and Barrett can go fuck a chainsaw
Posted by: The Unvaxed and Unmasked Ranger: Ready to Free Ukrainian Wagshambas From Zelensky Tyranny at March 05, 2025 04:16 PM (HYKHz)
133
I will defer to his pinion.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
134
It only becomes a problem if you get caught.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (7fElN)
-----------------
And this time around, it appears someone is looking. Which isn't the usual way it's been done.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (tT6L1)
---
Thus, the freakout from the Left...The very idea that someone might ask them to "show their work" never occurred to them because they never had to do so in the past.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (7fElN)
-----------------
And this time around, it appears someone is looking. Which isn't the usual way it's been done.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (tT6L1)
---
Thus, the freakout from the Left...The very idea that someone might ask them to "show their work" never occurred to them because they never had to do so in the past.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (7fElN)
135
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (6epxM)
The fact is some Democrats are Christian. They confess with mouth and believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord and God raised him the dead. I don't know about the religious beliefs of all Democrats What I do know is that my husband and I were Democrats for years until we both had a political conversion experience and didn't vote for Obama, but we were both Christians for years.
The fact is some Democrats are Christian. They confess with mouth and believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord and God raised him the dead. I don't know about the religious beliefs of all Democrats What I do know is that my husband and I were Democrats for years until we both had a political conversion experience and didn't vote for Obama, but we were both Christians for years.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (RBV1v)
136
Essentially, Ali needs to write out more specific orders, and the list of damages has to come from the plaintiffs, who have never provided that list, it seems.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (GBKbO)
So the judge sets specific policy now on who gets paid and who doesn’t. Which is what Alito said.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (GBKbO)
So the judge sets specific policy now on who gets paid and who doesn’t. Which is what Alito said.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (/BeiT)
137
Precisely. The lower court had no jurisdiction over this matter. Alito is 100% correct on that for many reasons. Entertaining this the way Roberts and ACB did is nothing but legal masturbation without any payoff. Why ask a lower court to provide specifics on matters over which they have no authority or jurisdiction?
Posted by: Marcus T at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (jBtak)
Oh, hey, somebody understands this is just lawyers jerking each other off while presuming to be above our elected officials.
Posted by: Marcus T at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (jBtak)
Oh, hey, somebody understands this is just lawyers jerking each other off while presuming to be above our elected officials.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (l3YAf)
138
Related:
"Hello, faggot lovers..."
https://is.gd/nSXENV
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM
Yea, not clicking on that link.
"Hello, faggot lovers..."
https://is.gd/nSXENV
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM
Yea, not clicking on that link.
Posted by: Minnfidel at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (4p0Xq)
139
I have become convinced that Barrett was intimidated when lunatics were allowed to protest at her home where she has small children.
Posted by: steevy at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (KQk9m)
140
Also, from reading the order, it appears SCOTUS is telling the lower court, "Please explain why you're telling the Executive to do that which is illegal and please show your work."
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (tT6L1)
141
I fucking HATE when Democrats put on the ashes.
I give no shit about Catlick practices, really. But I don't like seeing Democrats pretend they are any sort of Christian.
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (6epxM)
---
It's another form of virtue signaling--literally.
"See? I'm more virtuous than thou!"
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (7fElN)
God is not mocked. The benefit of the ashes is from the contemplation of its meaning. The dirt doesn't do anything.
I give no shit about Catlick practices, really. But I don't like seeing Democrats pretend they are any sort of Christian.
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:11 PM (6epxM)
---
It's another form of virtue signaling--literally.
"See? I'm more virtuous than thou!"
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (7fElN)
God is not mocked. The benefit of the ashes is from the contemplation of its meaning. The dirt doesn't do anything.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (n7h9X)
142
There's a very good chance PDT will get to nominate another SCJ and hoo boy is that going to be a show.
---------
That's why there HAS to be election integrity by the 2026 round--too many of the house and senate votes are nail-biters because "we" let thievery happen at the state level and then bemoan why the house and senate don't support our President.
---------
That's why there HAS to be election integrity by the 2026 round--too many of the house and senate votes are nail-biters because "we" let thievery happen at the state level and then bemoan why the house and senate don't support our President.
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (azSra)
143
But next time, the circuit will be able to hear it -- and thus the SC might not have to do anything, depending on how the circuit rules. The problem may go away for the SC. That's what I think is going on, and why they're "buying time" as I said above.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:10 PM (iFTx/)
=======
And all the while, Trump does what he's been doing: not paying out monies even when courts are throwing fits in TROs.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (GBKbO)
_____
Correct. The SC even basically said "give Trump a reasonable amount of time to comply." They want this kicked down the road.
Another thing for everyone to consider is that the SC -- and all appeals courts -- generally do not want to decide anything on the merits if they can avoid it. And standing on procedure is a good way to avoid the merits.
Alito would have said "fuck this procedural bullshit" and went ahead and decided the merits. I would have done the same. But that's not what appeals courts generally do. They avoid the merits if they can, hoping there's a chance the whole thing goes away.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:10 PM (iFTx/)
=======
And all the while, Trump does what he's been doing: not paying out monies even when courts are throwing fits in TROs.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (GBKbO)
_____
Correct. The SC even basically said "give Trump a reasonable amount of time to comply." They want this kicked down the road.
Another thing for everyone to consider is that the SC -- and all appeals courts -- generally do not want to decide anything on the merits if they can avoid it. And standing on procedure is a good way to avoid the merits.
Alito would have said "fuck this procedural bullshit" and went ahead and decided the merits. I would have done the same. But that's not what appeals courts generally do. They avoid the merits if they can, hoping there's a chance the whole thing goes away.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (iFTx/)
144
I mean, if Trump defies the courts, who do you think the public will side with?
Far left loons sucking the blood of taxpayers?
Or Trump?
There is no "respect the rule of law" remaining.
The entire legal judiciary smeared shit all over itself when it:
1) Did fuck-all against the thousands of illegal Covid lock-down orders
2) stroked their limp puds in response to the thousands of illegal election law changes from Covid
3) giggled as bullshit made-up crimes were filed against Trump
And the last one, especially, the public saw that--what should have been a perfect take-down, all nice and neatly legal--and voted for Trump.
Do you really think this isn't a fight Trump is ready to have? That now, now he's going to meekly back down? Cause some fucking judge said so?
Far left loons sucking the blood of taxpayers?
Or Trump?
There is no "respect the rule of law" remaining.
The entire legal judiciary smeared shit all over itself when it:
1) Did fuck-all against the thousands of illegal Covid lock-down orders
2) stroked their limp puds in response to the thousands of illegal election law changes from Covid
3) giggled as bullshit made-up crimes were filed against Trump
And the last one, especially, the public saw that--what should have been a perfect take-down, all nice and neatly legal--and voted for Trump.
Do you really think this isn't a fight Trump is ready to have? That now, now he's going to meekly back down? Cause some fucking judge said so?
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (wDiNp)
145
I will defer to his pinion.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m
I have it on good authority from Homer Simpson that its's "rack and peanut steering."
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m
I have it on good authority from Homer Simpson that its's "rack and peanut steering."
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (77rzZ)
146
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
I refuse to turn in that direction
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
I refuse to turn in that direction
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (/BeiT)
147
>>> 79 Not a single state voted for gay marriage.
—
A few did. Washington was the first I think.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (/BeiT)
=====
IIRC, Iowa passed a law against it. Iowa Supreme Court knocked it down.
—
A few did. Washington was the first I think.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (/BeiT)
=====
IIRC, Iowa passed a law against it. Iowa Supreme Court knocked it down.
Posted by: Turn 2 at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (JfxgE)
148
Actually, this ruling would be an ideal one for Trump to shit on.
It's the usual goddamned folderol these judges always puke up on certain controversial things - split the baby, and leave everyone bickering about the nonsensical chicken entrails they hurl on the floor of the Republic.
They've been pulling these stunts since the Great Stunt of 1803 because its usually a successful tactic, so they won't even see defiance coming. They feel like the cat who ate the canary today.
But the public is on the President's side in this case, and literally nobody can even understand their corny ruling and its incomprehensible penumbras. He's safe to go hard at them.
If Trump just comes out preemptively and says "not a chance, you homos - I won't cough up one more thin dime for your AIDS infected cosexualists half a world away, no matter what a bunch of guys in black dresses have to say about it - get fucked," he will prevail, and they will lose.
Bigly. Their power and prestige would be wrecked for a generation, like it always is when a President takes off his belt and spanks them.
It's the usual goddamned folderol these judges always puke up on certain controversial things - split the baby, and leave everyone bickering about the nonsensical chicken entrails they hurl on the floor of the Republic.
They've been pulling these stunts since the Great Stunt of 1803 because its usually a successful tactic, so they won't even see defiance coming. They feel like the cat who ate the canary today.
But the public is on the President's side in this case, and literally nobody can even understand their corny ruling and its incomprehensible penumbras. He's safe to go hard at them.
If Trump just comes out preemptively and says "not a chance, you homos - I won't cough up one more thin dime for your AIDS infected cosexualists half a world away, no matter what a bunch of guys in black dresses have to say about it - get fucked," he will prevail, and they will lose.
Bigly. Their power and prestige would be wrecked for a generation, like it always is when a President takes off his belt and spanks them.
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (BI5O2)
149
136 So the judge sets specific policy now on who gets paid and who doesn’t. Which is what Alito said.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (/BeiT)
=======
It's about listing damages, which is what's required in a lawsuit.
It all doesn't matter anyway since the $2 billion has already been paid out, right?
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (/BeiT)
=======
It's about listing damages, which is what's required in a lawsuit.
It all doesn't matter anyway since the $2 billion has already been paid out, right?
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (GBKbO)
150
109 She was giving Trump the Super Bitchy Face at the State of the Union address. Lots of scowls there. Seems like she could be a little more grateful to the guy who nominated her for the Supreme Court. Hopefully, Trump will forego diversity hires in the future...
Posted by: Mister Ghost
I noticed the scowls too. What a bitch.
Posted by: Mister Ghost
I noticed the scowls too. What a bitch.
Posted by: nurse ratched at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (FRZPI)
151
"I would take this to mean that Trump cannot turn on the spigot until this judge identifies specifically every dollar that had already been spent, reports that to the supremes, and then they say okie dokie.
That should be sometime just short of forever.
Posted by: From about That Time "
Show us where the money went.
That should be sometime just short of forever.
Posted by: From about That Time "
Show us where the money went.
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:19 PM (vFG9F)
152
Roberts sucks and should have done better.
But his order is directed entirely at Ali being bad at being a judge.
Alito is kind of off on a tangent that will eventually collide with SCOTUS's work on this case.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (GBKbO)
No, you are missing the precedent. Roberts allowed a lowly district judge to stamp all over the prerogative of the administration. Instead of simply saying..."nope, you don't get to dictate to the president, only Congress can do that," Roberts sent it back to the district court for clarification.
Exactly what bills the government is obligated to pay is not the issue, but Roberts is making it important, and ignoring the real issue.
That is dangerous.
But his order is directed entirely at Ali being bad at being a judge.
Alito is kind of off on a tangent that will eventually collide with SCOTUS's work on this case.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:07 PM (GBKbO)
No, you are missing the precedent. Roberts allowed a lowly district judge to stamp all over the prerogative of the administration. Instead of simply saying..."nope, you don't get to dictate to the president, only Congress can do that," Roberts sent it back to the district court for clarification.
Exactly what bills the government is obligated to pay is not the issue, but Roberts is making it important, and ignoring the real issue.
That is dangerous.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 05, 2025 04:20 PM (mWSu4)
153
Related:
"Hello, faggot lovers..."
https://is.gd/nSXENV
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM
Yea, not clicking on that link.
Posted by: Minnfidel
What's your problem with faggots?
They're not even that spicy; so kids will enjoy 'em, too.
Related:
"Hello, faggot lovers..."
https://is.gd/nSXENV
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:05 PM
Yea, not clicking on that link.
Posted by: Minnfidel
What's your problem with faggots?
They're not even that spicy; so kids will enjoy 'em, too.
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:20 PM (6epxM)
154
I wish people wouldn't call me Amy Cornhole Barrett. It gives me that tingly feeling.
Posted by: Amy Cornhole Barrett at March 05, 2025 04:20 PM (paSBy)
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:20 PM (77rzZ)
156
Coney Dog has been a real piece of...work, eh?
Posted by: Notorious BFD at March 05, 2025 04:21 PM (mH6SG)
157
152 No, you are missing the precedent. Roberts allowed a lowly district judge to stamp all over the prerogative of the administration. Instead of simply saying..."nope, you don't get to dictate to the president, only Congress can do that," Roberts sent it back to the district court for clarification.
Exactly what bills the government is obligated to pay is not the issue, but Roberts is making it important, and ignoring the real issue.
That is dangerous.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 05, 2025 04:20 PM (mWSu4)
=======
Roberts is essentially allowing the status quo to continue.
Which is bad, but it's not forcing Trump to pay out $2 billion.
Exactly what bills the government is obligated to pay is not the issue, but Roberts is making it important, and ignoring the real issue.
That is dangerous.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 05, 2025 04:20 PM (mWSu4)
=======
Roberts is essentially allowing the status quo to continue.
Which is bad, but it's not forcing Trump to pay out $2 billion.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:21 PM (GBKbO)
Posted by: Robert Palmer at March 05, 2025 04:21 PM (JfxgE)
159
BOOM BITCHES Trumps Rapid Response directive is catching on.
Rep. Thomas Massie Demands Congress Cut Off USAID Funding After Supreme Court’s Outrageous Ruling:
Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) is calling on Congress to take immediate action to defund the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) following an outrageous SCOTUS ruling.
In a jaw-dropping betrayal of American taxpayers and constitutional integrity, the Supreme Court has caved to the radical left, stomping all over President Donald Trump’s rightful executive authority.
On Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must IMMEDIATELY fork over $1.9 billion in foreign aid payments—money that hardworking Americans never signed up to ship overseas.
This disgraceful ruling upholds a rogue district court judge’s order, forcing the administration to honor bloated foreign aid agreements that predate Trump’s America First agenda.
Rep. Thomas Massie Demands Congress Cut Off USAID Funding After Supreme Court’s Outrageous Ruling:
Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) is calling on Congress to take immediate action to defund the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) following an outrageous SCOTUS ruling.
In a jaw-dropping betrayal of American taxpayers and constitutional integrity, the Supreme Court has caved to the radical left, stomping all over President Donald Trump’s rightful executive authority.
On Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must IMMEDIATELY fork over $1.9 billion in foreign aid payments—money that hardworking Americans never signed up to ship overseas.
This disgraceful ruling upholds a rogue district court judge’s order, forcing the administration to honor bloated foreign aid agreements that predate Trump’s America First agenda.
Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at March 05, 2025 04:21 PM (w4nzS)
160
I was disappointed with this ruling, but I don't know that it is as bad as all that. In the end it looks like SCOTUS is saying the government has to pay for work it has essentially contracted out. Now, suppose the Federal government says, "You didn't actually do anything, so we aren't going to pay", or "we don't believe you did anything, so we are going to need to audit you to determine if any work was done for which you may be paid". Seems like there is some wiggle room here, but I'm and engineer, not a lawyer.
Posted by: Seamus Moon at March 05, 2025 04:21 PM (Ab/3c)
161
Did these assholes actually perform work on behalf of the US government? If so, then, yeah, they should get paid. Even if it's bullshit that I think should never have been done in the first place. But $2 billion? Seriously?
Posted by: Angzarr the Cromulent at March 05, 2025 04:22 PM (XMwZJ)
162
GW Bush is such a disaster.
I more and more believe 911 was done on purpose. Not quite 100% but that shitstain is a devious little prick.
It’s easy for me to see it being this way.
GW Bush is such a disaster.
I more and more believe 911 was done on purpose. Not quite 100% but that shitstain is a devious little prick.
It’s easy for me to see it being this way.
Posted by: E Buzz at March 05, 2025 04:22 PM (HUYTk)
163
Forgot to add, when you see President Trump shaking the hands of SCOTUS, ole Amy looks nervous.
---
Trump did the hand-on-top-of-shaking-hand handshake with her.
4. The two-handed handshake: Usually seen among Politicians, this type of handshake is said to convey the meaning of warmness, friendly, honest and trustworthy. But there's a catch here: if his/her left hand is staying on your hand, it is a sincere handshake. However, if the hand goes up your wrist, your arms or your elbow, he is trying to get something from you.
---
Trump did the hand-on-top-of-shaking-hand handshake with her.
4. The two-handed handshake: Usually seen among Politicians, this type of handshake is said to convey the meaning of warmness, friendly, honest and trustworthy. But there's a catch here: if his/her left hand is staying on your hand, it is a sincere handshake. However, if the hand goes up your wrist, your arms or your elbow, he is trying to get something from you.
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at March 05, 2025 04:22 PM (wDiNp)
164
The fact is some Democrats are Christian. They confess with mouth and believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord and God raised him the dead. I don't know about the religious beliefs of all Democrats What I do know is that my husband and I were Democrats for years until we both had a political conversion experience and didn't vote for Obama, but we were both Christians for years.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (RBV1v)
In Catholicism in particular you have to do a lot of stretching even as a layman to support abortion. It isn't over the line into actual heresy yet but its pretty close. For example, Pelosi should be forbidden the eucharist for her pro abortion stance.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (RBV1v)
In Catholicism in particular you have to do a lot of stretching even as a layman to support abortion. It isn't over the line into actual heresy yet but its pretty close. For example, Pelosi should be forbidden the eucharist for her pro abortion stance.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:22 PM (n7h9X)
165
Exactly what bills the government is obligated to pay is not the issue, but Roberts is making it important, and ignoring the real issue.
That is dangerous.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 05, 2025 04:20 PM
Roberts is capable of observing the tree right in front of him. However, he is incapable of seeing the entire forest surrounding that tree.
I cannot figure out if this is deliberate, or if he is not a very wise legal mind.
That is dangerous.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 05, 2025 04:20 PM
Roberts is capable of observing the tree right in front of him. However, he is incapable of seeing the entire forest surrounding that tree.
I cannot figure out if this is deliberate, or if he is not a very wise legal mind.
Posted by: Pillage Idiot at March 05, 2025 04:23 PM (Q4Dc6)
166
I never thought the boofer would be a better supreme than the female mackerel snapper.
Posted by: Maj. Healey at March 05, 2025 04:23 PM (/U5Yz)
167
Every justice on SCOTUS knows jurisdiction for these claims is defined in 28 USC 1491. So ask yourself why Roberts and his Mini-me would even go this route. The only possible 3d chess move is to force the lower court to specifically write out the potential claims the plaintiff is selling and on the process admit he doesn’t have jurisdiction. But it’s more likely he’ll write them out and try to find an exception as to why he has jurisdiction, because at the moment he’s shown SCOTUS his ass and has to cover it. Then SCOTUS will rule and throw this over to the USCFC where it will get monkey stomped. That way the cowards at SCOTUS don’t get to immediately dick punch the lower courts issuing these TRO and once again avoid the issue.
Which is why Alito dissent is basically WTF.
Which is why Alito dissent is basically WTF.
Posted by: Marcus T at March 05, 2025 04:24 PM (jBtak)
168
If it indeed prevents correcting the wrong, what choice but to simply flip the corruption to OUR side over the next 4 years. Take each such funding device, restaff it w patriots and funnel every dime to Conservatives and Conservative causes.
Posted by: Gary R at March 05, 2025 04:24 PM (36OLy)
169
I think that Barrett gets into the tiniest details and kind of gets stuck there and votes accordingly, not looking so much at the big picture. Which doesn't make her wrong.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:24 PM (CQE5S)
170
I looked into this and Barretts sides with Thomas/Alito about 80-85% of the time
its thats 15%-20% when she gets PMS that fucks the countrys shit up
its thats 15%-20% when she gets PMS that fucks the countrys shit up
Posted by: The Unvaxed and Unmasked Ranger: Ready to Free Ukrainian Wagshambas From Zelensky Tyranny at March 05, 2025 04:24 PM (HYKHz)
171
I think Trump should immediately issue an order to turn the money back on. He should do this using homing pigeon.
Maybe one sentence at a time.
Honestly, what are they gonna do, sue him again? He could probably delay the turn on command for 4 years easy.
The point would be to show how absurd it is to not have hire/fire and spending approval authority all fully within the Executive.
Maybe one sentence at a time.
Honestly, what are they gonna do, sue him again? He could probably delay the turn on command for 4 years easy.
The point would be to show how absurd it is to not have hire/fire and spending approval authority all fully within the Executive.
Posted by: bob (moron incognitus) at March 05, 2025 04:24 PM (u84Lb)
172
Even entertaining the idea that this “judge” has any authority to tell Trump how to spend money sets a dangerous precedent.
Let’s say eventually scotus rules that the $2b doesn’t have to be laid. It won’t be the end of it. They’ve opened up Pandora’s box. There will be 1000 of these cases over every $70 USAID invoice.
Let’s say eventually scotus rules that the $2b doesn’t have to be laid. It won’t be the end of it. They’ve opened up Pandora’s box. There will be 1000 of these cases over every $70 USAID invoice.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:24 PM (/BeiT)
173
In Catholicism in particular you have to do a lot of stretching even as a layman to support abortion. It isn't over the line into actual heresy yet but its pretty close. For example, Pelosi should be forbidden the eucharist for her pro abortion stance.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:22 PM (n7h9X)
As I recall the SF cardinal banned her.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:22 PM (n7h9X)
As I recall the SF cardinal banned her.
Posted by: BruceWayne at March 05, 2025 04:24 PM (MGB5H)
174
They seemingly tried to shortcut the appealable PI before it started. But all we have is SCOTUS saying, "Ali, figure out the payments."
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (GBKbO)
I suspect that it will be a loooooong time before any payment will be made, if ... ever.
Posted by: mrp at March 05, 2025 04:16 PM (rj6Yv)
A TRO to make the payments is in effect a PI that forces an irreversible decision. District Court should have properly issued a PI, which would have the normal appeal route, which SCOTUS would not see until Circuit Appeal.
Thus, by issuing a TRO, they forced DOJ to go this circuitous route to get to some properly appealable judgment.
It's a mess of District Court's doing*, and I hope the AIDS grift goes under while awaiting their payment for "work done," which is never really done - if at all - until it is funded by uncle sugar.
* I am with majority of SCOTUS here - despite agreement with Alito's caution - that they need to get the District Court to do their job and have it go through the proper appeals process.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (GBKbO)
I suspect that it will be a loooooong time before any payment will be made, if ... ever.
Posted by: mrp at March 05, 2025 04:16 PM (rj6Yv)
A TRO to make the payments is in effect a PI that forces an irreversible decision. District Court should have properly issued a PI, which would have the normal appeal route, which SCOTUS would not see until Circuit Appeal.
Thus, by issuing a TRO, they forced DOJ to go this circuitous route to get to some properly appealable judgment.
It's a mess of District Court's doing*, and I hope the AIDS grift goes under while awaiting their payment for "work done," which is never really done - if at all - until it is funded by uncle sugar.
* I am with majority of SCOTUS here - despite agreement with Alito's caution - that they need to get the District Court to do their job and have it go through the proper appeals process.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:24 PM (i24o9)
175
So they will never be able to document where all the money went or was supposed to go. PDT prevails but not for the right reason.
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:25 PM (vFG9F)
176
Say there's a big corporation. Some entire division of the corporation exists that the main corporate structure and board isn't even aware of, and they just found out through auditing that these mystery employees have been getting paid $2 billion a year.
Corpo says "get the hell out of here, you don't even actually work here, how are you even getting paychecks?", and the division people sue, demanding the money they expect for whatever "work" they claim they did.
How does that case go?
Corpo says "get the hell out of here, you don't even actually work here, how are you even getting paychecks?", and the division people sue, demanding the money they expect for whatever "work" they claim they did.
How does that case go?
Posted by: Warai-otoko at March 05, 2025 04:25 PM (KtIIi)
177
Roberts is essentially allowing the status quo to continue.
Which is bad, but it's not forcing Trump to pay out $2 billion.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:21 PM (GBKbO)
You can still do the reaming strategy above. Requiring the government to watch you closely full time can be a sword you are holding by the blade.
Which is bad, but it's not forcing Trump to pay out $2 billion.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:21 PM (GBKbO)
You can still do the reaming strategy above. Requiring the government to watch you closely full time can be a sword you are holding by the blade.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:26 PM (n7h9X)
178
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:22 PM (n7h9X)
I agree with you about Pelosi and one Bishop banned her from receiving the Eucharist. I was just responding to the idea that no Democrats can be Christian.
I agree with you about Pelosi and one Bishop banned her from receiving the Eucharist. I was just responding to the idea that no Democrats can be Christian.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 05, 2025 04:26 PM (42Vb+)
Posted by: USAID at March 05, 2025 04:26 PM (UJ+K5)
180
In Catholicism in particular you have to do a lot of stretching even as a layman to support abortion
There was historically some leeway, before the Cath/Orth split, with the legal fiction of Ensoulment. Before three months gestation (per Justinian), abortion wasn't exactly approved but was allowed.
Justinian was an Emperor, and not a secure one, so had to be practical. Abortion is flat disapproved by the Patristics.
Abortion-on-demand after Ensoulment, as far as I know, has never been allowed in Christendom.
tl;dr if you are Catholic, I can understand not being firm on the first trimester, but you leave the Communion Of Saints when you support it whenever.
There was historically some leeway, before the Cath/Orth split, with the legal fiction of Ensoulment. Before three months gestation (per Justinian), abortion wasn't exactly approved but was allowed.
Justinian was an Emperor, and not a secure one, so had to be practical. Abortion is flat disapproved by the Patristics.
Abortion-on-demand after Ensoulment, as far as I know, has never been allowed in Christendom.
tl;dr if you are Catholic, I can understand not being firm on the first trimester, but you leave the Communion Of Saints when you support it whenever.
Posted by: gKWVE at March 05, 2025 04:26 PM (gKWVE)
181
Look, while this is annoying, remember, Chevron was overturned, Roe V Wade was overturned, and, Looper, was it, was overturned. Some rather consequential decisions.
Plenty of huge wins. SCOTUS may not want to deal with this funding, but, the reality is: Congress needs to shut down the money so the Executive isn't put in this position.
Plenty of huge wins. SCOTUS may not want to deal with this funding, but, the reality is: Congress needs to shut down the money so the Executive isn't put in this position.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM (tT6L1)
182
I agree with the nooses, not for us but for judges who can't honestly judge.
Posted by: Wingnutt at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM (VupJh)
183
What I do know is that my husband and I were Democrats for years
****************
I think RFK is a good example of a devout catholic democrat particularly because he cares about the environment and the food supply which has never been a platform for the RINO shitweasels who never gave a fuck about any of that until Trump
****************
I think RFK is a good example of a devout catholic democrat particularly because he cares about the environment and the food supply which has never been a platform for the RINO shitweasels who never gave a fuck about any of that until Trump
Posted by: The Unvaxed and Unmasked Ranger: Ready to Free Ukrainian Wagshambas From Zelensky Tyranny at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM (HYKHz)
184
There was a 5-4 decision from SCOTUS a couple of days ago on another issue and ACB joined the other ladies on the losing side. The lesson is no woman should ever again be nominated to SCOTUS.
Posted by: Oglebay at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM (MMp6W)
185
133 I will defer to his pinion.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
'Cause it was grinding my gears.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
'Cause it was grinding my gears.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM (CQE5S)
186
Congress should theoretically control spending, but they don't.
Posted by: Harun at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM (IuIym)
187
The executive should also have the power to decide if the (alleged) tasks were adequately performed. Probably a lot of it was jobs like Hunter being on some board ... but these are "charity" boards.
Posted by: illiniwek at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM (Cus5s)
188
In Catholicism in particular you have to do a lot of stretching even as a layman to support abortion. It isn't over the line into actual heresy yet but its pretty close.
-------------
I'm not at all wanting this to sound personal, but it would take a pretty blinkered reading of the 4 gospels and in particular Jesus's interactions with children and women to find any sort of "Christian case for abortion".
-------------
I'm not at all wanting this to sound personal, but it would take a pretty blinkered reading of the 4 gospels and in particular Jesus's interactions with children and women to find any sort of "Christian case for abortion".
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM (azSra)
189
So they will never be able to document where all the money went or was supposed to go. PDT prevails but not for the right reason.
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:25 PM (vFG9F)
You think they got rid of the money in a way that DOGE, government accountants or the best non government accountants can't find?
I don't.
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:25 PM (vFG9F)
You think they got rid of the money in a way that DOGE, government accountants or the best non government accountants can't find?
I don't.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:28 PM (n7h9X)
190
Suppose a judge ruled that 1 +1=5.
This ruling is the equivalent of scotus saying well it might equal 5. We’re just not sure. Can you show us how you got there? Please show us your work.
Instead of saying no you fucking retard it’s 2.
This ruling is the equivalent of scotus saying well it might equal 5. We’re just not sure. Can you show us how you got there? Please show us your work.
Instead of saying no you fucking retard it’s 2.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:28 PM (/BeiT)
191
Quoting AtC on this: it's not a ruling, it's just a punt back to a lower court, and the lower court's ruling is not that Trump can't cut spending, it's that contracts that were already signed and in flight should be paid if the work is done.
So much hair on fire for no reason.
So much hair on fire for no reason.
Posted by: Ian S. at March 05, 2025 04:28 PM (2ocoG)
192
181 Look, while this is annoying, remember, Chevron was overturned, Roe V Wade was overturned, and, Looper, was it, was overturned. Some rather consequential decisions.
Plenty of huge wins. SCOTUS may not want to deal with this funding, but, the reality is: Congress needs to shut down the money so the Executive isn't put in this position.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM (tT6L1)
=======
Loper is what overturned Chevron.
But, another case to remember is Janus decided in 2018 that made it illegal to require union fees from public sector union workers.
Plenty of huge wins. SCOTUS may not want to deal with this funding, but, the reality is: Congress needs to shut down the money so the Executive isn't put in this position.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM (tT6L1)
=======
Loper is what overturned Chevron.
But, another case to remember is Janus decided in 2018 that made it illegal to require union fees from public sector union workers.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:28 PM (GBKbO)
193
I will defer to his pinion.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
'Cause it was grinding my gears.
----------
Maybe we should pump the brakes on this...
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
'Cause it was grinding my gears.
----------
Maybe we should pump the brakes on this...
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:28 PM (azSra)
194
Look, if there's going to be nooses and hanging WE should be the one's swinging.
I suggest black gowned thugs take a test drive or fifty first.
I suggest black gowned thugs take a test drive or fifty first.
Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, buy ammo at March 05, 2025 04:29 PM (xcxpd)
195
133 I will defer to his pinion.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
'Cause it was grinding my gears.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM
Well at least it wasn't grinding your tranny.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
'Cause it was grinding my gears.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM
Well at least it wasn't grinding your tranny.
Posted by: Minnfidel at March 05, 2025 04:29 PM (4p0Xq)
196
191 Quoting AtC on this: it's not a ruling, it's just a punt back to a lower court, and the lower court's ruling is not that Trump can't cut spending, it's that contracts that were already signed and in flight should be paid if the work is done.
So much hair on fire for no reason.
Posted by: Ian S. at March 05, 2025 04:28 PM (2ocoG)
Yay!
So much hair on fire for no reason.
Posted by: Ian S. at March 05, 2025 04:28 PM (2ocoG)
Yay!
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:29 PM (CQE5S)
197
I was just responding to the idea that no Democrats can be Christian.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke
No Democrat can be a sincere Christian if they support their party's platform.
For the record, there are a lot of fake Christians among the Republicans, too. But only the MAGA agenda is more or less fully consistent with Christianity, IMHO.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke
No Democrat can be a sincere Christian if they support their party's platform.
For the record, there are a lot of fake Christians among the Republicans, too. But only the MAGA agenda is more or less fully consistent with Christianity, IMHO.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:29 PM (77rzZ)
198
"I will defer to his pinion.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
'Cause it was grinding my gears.
Posted by: m"
I'm not going to knuckle under to these spindly puns.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
'Cause it was grinding my gears.
Posted by: m"
I'm not going to knuckle under to these spindly puns.
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:29 PM (vFG9F)
199
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
I refuse to turn in that direction
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (/BeiT)
Those who have should make a u-turn to reverse course. But they will power on.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
I refuse to turn in that direction
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (/BeiT)
Those who have should make a u-turn to reverse course. But they will power on.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:30 PM (i24o9)
200
Start building a circular gallows all around the Capitol. It should work the same way falling dominoes work.
Posted by: look whats not at March 05, 2025 04:30 PM (nakGR)
201
200
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:30 PM (CQE5S)
202
184 There was a 5-4 decision from SCOTUS a couple of days ago on another issue and ACB joined the other ladies on the losing side. The lesson is no woman should ever again be nominated to SCOTUS.
Posted by: Oglebay
Sandra Day O'Connor also had a hyphenated last name. Sayin'
Posted by: Oglebay
Sandra Day O'Connor also had a hyphenated last name. Sayin'
Posted by: Maj. Healey at March 05, 2025 04:30 PM (/U5Yz)
203
okay I found it - thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/ piis0140-6736(05)71025-4/fulltext
Justinian Code said 40 days
Justinian Code said 40 days
Posted by: gKWVE at March 05, 2025 04:30 PM (gKWVE)
204
Quoting AtC on this: it's not a ruling, it's just a punt back to a lower court, and the lower court's ruling is not that Trump can't cut spending, it's that contracts that were already signed and in flight should be paid if the work is done.
So much hair on fire for no reason.
Posted by: Ian S. at March 05, 2025 04:28 PM (2ocoG)
---
If legal rulings were written in PLAIN ENGLISH, then we'd avoid a ton of confusion.
Instead, they are all written in complex legalese that makes Ithkuil look simple.
No wonder no one really knows what any of these rulings says or means.
So much hair on fire for no reason.
Posted by: Ian S. at March 05, 2025 04:28 PM (2ocoG)
---
If legal rulings were written in PLAIN ENGLISH, then we'd avoid a ton of confusion.
Instead, they are all written in complex legalese that makes Ithkuil look simple.
No wonder no one really knows what any of these rulings says or means.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at March 05, 2025 04:30 PM (7fElN)
205
93 I will defer to his pinion.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
'Cause it was grinding my gears.
----------
Maybe we should pump the brakes on this...
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:28 PM (azSra)
Why do I have a rear window defroster ?
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
And to his rack?
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:13 PM (CQE5S)
Why cheapen the serious you guys discussion by trying to steer it to puns.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:17 PM (i24o9)
'Cause it was grinding my gears.
----------
Maybe we should pump the brakes on this...
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:28 PM (azSra)
Why do I have a rear window defroster ?
Posted by: Yugo at March 05, 2025 04:30 PM (UJ+K5)
206
Question: Should Catholics request a Vatican III, or return to Vatican I, or root all those still in the Church who came up with the Vatican II bullshit?
Question: Should Catholics request a Vatican III, or return to Vatican I, or root all those still in the Church who came up with the Vatican II bullshit?
Posted by: Soothsayer is for Faggot Lovers at March 05, 2025 04:31 PM (6epxM)
207
Resistance mayors that are testifying on the hill today, just earned themselves a criminal referral to the DOJ. Uff da.
Posted by: runner at March 05, 2025 04:31 PM (g47mK)
208
A final comment: The issue on the TRO's order to pay centers around payments for work that was already done under a contract, versus work that wasn't yet done. I think that's what the majority was getting at when it asked for clarification on what exactly Trump is supposed to pay.
The issue is very important. A court certainly can't tell Trump what to do with general funds not already paid or "earned." But can a court tell Trump -- or any government branch or agency -- that he has to pay for work that was already done, pursuant to a valid contract at the time? Sure it can.
Now, I think that case would have to be brought in the court of claims, and not a general district court, but the idea that the president is immune from having to pay for work already done is fanciful to say the least.
The issue is very important. A court certainly can't tell Trump what to do with general funds not already paid or "earned." But can a court tell Trump -- or any government branch or agency -- that he has to pay for work that was already done, pursuant to a valid contract at the time? Sure it can.
Now, I think that case would have to be brought in the court of claims, and not a general district court, but the idea that the president is immune from having to pay for work already done is fanciful to say the least.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:31 PM (iFTx/)
209
There was historically some leeway, before the Cath/Orth split, with the legal fiction of Ensoulment. Before three months gestation (per Justinian), abortion wasn't exactly approved but was allowed.
Justinian was an Emperor, and not a secure one, so had to be practical. Abortion is flat disapproved by the Patristics.
Abortion-on-demand after Ensoulment, as far as I know, has never been allowed in Christendom.
tl;dr if you are Catholic, I can understand not being firm on the first trimester, but you leave the Communion Of Saints when you support it whenever.
Posted by: gKWVE
That's very interesting. Thank you.
Justinian was an Emperor, and not a secure one, so had to be practical. Abortion is flat disapproved by the Patristics.
Abortion-on-demand after Ensoulment, as far as I know, has never been allowed in Christendom.
tl;dr if you are Catholic, I can understand not being firm on the first trimester, but you leave the Communion Of Saints when you support it whenever.
Posted by: gKWVE
That's very interesting. Thank you.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:31 PM (77rzZ)
210
Show the proof that these AIDS clinics exist. I'd be willing to bet that many do not and the money is being given to a no show NGO.
Posted by: ryukyu at March 05, 2025 04:31 PM (M/bod)
211
Actually I am enjoying the uncertainty this ruling engenders.
The addicts May get their fix or not.
The addicts May get their fix or not.
Posted by: Anna Puma at March 05, 2025 04:32 PM (yUN99)
212
I would take this to mean that Trump cannot turn on the spigot until this judge identifies specifically every dollar that had already been spent, reports that to the supremes, and then they say okie dokie.
That should be sometime just short of forever.
Posted by: From about That Time at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (n4GiU)
Does that sound like an opinion the obama judges would have signed?
That should be sometime just short of forever.
Posted by: From about That Time at March 05, 2025 04:14 PM (n4GiU)
Does that sound like an opinion the obama judges would have signed?
Posted by: Methos, definitely doesn't have a 360yo SSN at March 05, 2025 04:32 PM (Dnobf)
213
@alexthechick hasn't mentioned this on X yet.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:32 PM (CQE5S)
214
Woo Hoo
a salvo has hits its target!
I repeat
a salvo has hit its target!
Elon Musk and DOGE have TERMINATED the lease on the Obama Presidential Library site in Chicago, per Fox
Barry’s gonna be BIG mad
a salvo has hits its target!
I repeat
a salvo has hit its target!
Elon Musk and DOGE have TERMINATED the lease on the Obama Presidential Library site in Chicago, per Fox
Barry’s gonna be BIG mad
Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at March 05, 2025 04:32 PM (w4nzS)
215
I was just responding to the idea that no Democrats can be Christian.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke
No Democrat can be a sincere Christian if they support their party's platform.
----------
I'm a Christian and was a Democrat until 9/11. I was sincere...but misguided.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke
No Democrat can be a sincere Christian if they support their party's platform.
----------
I'm a Christian and was a Democrat until 9/11. I was sincere...but misguided.
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:32 PM (azSra)
216
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:29 PM (77rzZ)
I don't even think some average Christians know what the entire Democrat platform is they've been propogandized and lied to for so long. I think even some Democrats can't stand mayor Wu.
I don't even think some average Christians know what the entire Democrat platform is they've been propogandized and lied to for so long. I think even some Democrats can't stand mayor Wu.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (42Vb+)
217
213 @alexthechick hasn't mentioned this on X yet.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:32 PM (CQE5S)
======
Yes she has.
https://x.com/alexthechick/status/
1897297306057101701
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:32 PM (CQE5S)
======
Yes she has.
https://x.com/alexthechick/status/
1897297306057101701
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (GBKbO)
218
Great prose like usual with a great interpretation, Ace.
I am reading the Constitution's Article II and I see no phrase called "Judicial Review" or whatnot.
$2,000,000,000 is a lot of MY FUCKING money and I AM THE FUCKING SHAREHOLDER. Where is my return?
Thanks, I feel better. A little.
I am reading the Constitution's Article II and I see no phrase called "Judicial Review" or whatnot.
$2,000,000,000 is a lot of MY FUCKING money and I AM THE FUCKING SHAREHOLDER. Where is my return?
Thanks, I feel better. A little.
Posted by: Danimal28 at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (nT4HF)
219
Posted by: ryukyu at March 05, 2025 04:31 PM (M/bod)
Great nic. For some reason, I would love to go to the Ryukyus sometime.
Great nic. For some reason, I would love to go to the Ryukyus sometime.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (77rzZ)
220
The feds must have well-hidden cameras in the SCOTUS stables that caught ACB doing a Catherine the Great impression.
Posted by: Oglebay at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (MMp6W)
221
142 There's a very good chance PDT will get to nominate another SCJ and hoo boy is that going to be a show.
---------
That's why there HAS to be election integrity by the 2026 round--too many of the house and senate votes are nail-biters because "we" let thievery happen at the state level and then bemoan why the house and senate don't support our President.
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (azSra
That right there is what the left plans, steal the leflislature in 26. Then it’s business as usual again in Washington City.
---------
That's why there HAS to be election integrity by the 2026 round--too many of the house and senate votes are nail-biters because "we" let thievery happen at the state level and then bemoan why the house and senate don't support our President.
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:18 PM (azSra
That right there is what the left plans, steal the leflislature in 26. Then it’s business as usual again in Washington City.
Posted by: Eromero at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (LHPAg)
222
But, at the end of the day, I don't really care what ruling Trump flouts. It doesn't matter. One flouted ruling, and their goose is cooked.
If they rule that the sky is blue, he should come out with an EO renaming the sky "Earth's Yellow Roof."
If they rule that the sky is blue, he should come out with an EO renaming the sky "Earth's Yellow Roof."
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (BI5O2)
223
I'm not at all wanting this to sound personal, but it would take a pretty blinkered reading of the 4 gospels and in particular Jesus's interactions with children and women to find any sort of "Christian case for abortion".
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM (azSra)
And in Catholicism we have a single leader that can define something you must believe to be a Catholic. For example, if you don't believe the exact relation of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit that was hammered out by the Emperor Constantine and the Bishops in 300 AD to 600 AD or so, you're out. The last update was in the 1860s I think. So there are important decisions about abortion at a lesser level. For example, the body and soul of an infant are joined at conception. There is no time that the infant is 'just a clump of cells'. It has a soul.
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:27 PM (azSra)
And in Catholicism we have a single leader that can define something you must believe to be a Catholic. For example, if you don't believe the exact relation of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit that was hammered out by the Emperor Constantine and the Bishops in 300 AD to 600 AD or so, you're out. The last update was in the 1860s I think. So there are important decisions about abortion at a lesser level. For example, the body and soul of an infant are joined at conception. There is no time that the infant is 'just a clump of cells'. It has a soul.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (n7h9X)
224
The feds must have well-hidden cameras in the SCOTUS stables that caught ACB doing a Catherine the Great impression.
Posted by: Oglebay at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (MMp6W)
Neigh.
Posted by: Oglebay at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (MMp6W)
Neigh.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (i24o9)
225
Now, I think that case would have to be brought in the court of claims, and not a general district court, but the idea that the president is immune from having to pay for work already done is fanciful to say the least.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:31 PM (iFTx/)
Is that the reason behind them getting into the nitty gritty of what is actually being paid for?
Some might be legit work that got done. Some might be legit work that got neglected or postponed. Some might not even be legitimate at all. What is Uncle Sam actually on the hook for? Is that the question they're trying to get at?
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:31 PM (iFTx/)
Is that the reason behind them getting into the nitty gritty of what is actually being paid for?
Some might be legit work that got done. Some might be legit work that got neglected or postponed. Some might not even be legitimate at all. What is Uncle Sam actually on the hook for? Is that the question they're trying to get at?
Posted by: Warai-otoko at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (KtIIi)
226
>>Question: Should Catholics request a Vatican III, or return to Vatican I, or root all those still in the Church who came up with the Vatican II bullshit?
Posted by: Soothsayer is for Faggot Lovers
I'm okay with prior VII church. TLM church basically follows VI catechism.
Posted by: Soothsayer is for Faggot Lovers
I'm okay with prior VII church. TLM church basically follows VI catechism.
Posted by: Maj. Healey at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (/U5Yz)
227
it's that contracts that were already signed and in flight should be paid if the work is done.
So much hair on fire for no reason.
Posted by: Ian S.
_________
Stacy Abrams already did all the work she was intending to do for the $2 billion.
So much hair on fire for no reason.
Posted by: Ian S.
_________
Stacy Abrams already did all the work she was intending to do for the $2 billion.
Posted by: Biff Pocoroba at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (Dm8we)
228
We need a clone of Clarence Thomas. Maybe 3 of them
Posted by: Scuba_Dude at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (4q/mG)
229
"Elon Musk and DOGE have TERMINATED the lease on the Obama Presidential Library site in Chicago, per Fox"
I have to admit, my jaw dropped. That's my President!
I have to admit, my jaw dropped. That's my President!
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (vFG9F)
230
217 213 @alexthechick hasn't mentioned this on X yet.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:32 PM (CQE5S)
======
Yes she has.
https://x.com/alexthechick/status/
1897297306057101701
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (GBKbO)
Thanks! It was not yet showing up on nitter.net.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:32 PM (CQE5S)
======
Yes she has.
https://x.com/alexthechick/status/
1897297306057101701
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (GBKbO)
Thanks! It was not yet showing up on nitter.net.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (CQE5S)
231
What drives me around the bend with this latest imperial district judge unilaterally trashing the Constitutional separation of powers is this is even happening in the first place.
An emphatic 6-3 ruling here would have gone far in rectifying the endless this abuse by theseUS District Court Judges Self Appointed Democrat Party Resistance Warriors.
Ending this and the looting done by the administrative state are central to restoring the nation to some semblance of being a Constitutional Republic. This doesn't include the Democrat party, for now, since it is irrelevant and seems content to play with pickle ball paddles.
An emphatic 6-3 ruling here would have gone far in rectifying the endless this abuse by these
Ending this and the looting done by the administrative state are central to restoring the nation to some semblance of being a Constitutional Republic. This doesn't include the Democrat party, for now, since it is irrelevant and seems content to play with pickle ball paddles.
Posted by: Altaria Pilgram - My President has convictions at March 05, 2025 04:35 PM (S9FN9)
232
@alexthechick hasn't mentioned this on X yet.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:32 PM (CQE5S)
======
Yes she has.
https://x.com/alexthechick/status/
1897297306057101701
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (GBKbO)
______
So ... pretty much exactly what I've been saying then ....
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:32 PM (CQE5S)
======
Yes she has.
https://x.com/alexthechick/status/
1897297306057101701
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (GBKbO)
______
So ... pretty much exactly what I've been saying then ....
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:35 PM (iFTx/)
233
232 So ... pretty much exactly what I've been saying then ....
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:35 PM (iFTx/)
=======
Which is wrong because the Republic is already lost, the $2 billion has already been spent on stealing Lindsay Graham Senate seat, and Trump has been convicted of impeachment by the entire Senate at once.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:35 PM (iFTx/)
=======
Which is wrong because the Republic is already lost, the $2 billion has already been spent on stealing Lindsay Graham Senate seat, and Trump has been convicted of impeachment by the entire Senate at once.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:36 PM (GBKbO)
234
If it’s paying for services rendered I have no issue with it. But it’s more than that. The lawsuit that started it it all wasn’t for the $2B. It was to reinstate all funding. The $2b is kind of a McGuffin.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:36 PM (/BeiT)
235
I bet he didn't see that coming....
@jihadwatchRS 4m
Pakistan: Muslim cleric who repeatedly supported jihad suicide attack is killed in jihad suicide attack -
@jihadwatchRS 4m
Pakistan: Muslim cleric who repeatedly supported jihad suicide attack is killed in jihad suicide attack -
Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 05, 2025 04:36 PM (mlg/3)
236
"In 2020-2021, @SBAgov issued 3,095 loans, including PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) and EIDL (Economic Injury Disaster Loan), for $333M to borrowers over 115 years old who were still marked as alive in the Social Security database. In one case, a 157 years old individual received $36k in loans."
https://tinyurl.com/47awcssz
https://tinyurl.com/47awcssz
Posted by: Meade Lux Lewis, Domestic Terrorist at March 05, 2025 04:37 PM (paSBy)
237
Can Trump friendly lawyers start picking Trump friendly judges to preemptively “challenge” every Trump decision so the challenge gets denied, and then Trump can claim the issue is res judicada when later brought before the Hawaiian judge?
Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at March 05, 2025 04:37 PM (7mSw0)
238
"Elon Musk and DOGE have TERMINATED the lease on the Obama Presidential Library site in Chicago, per Fox"
Well, it's his old library site which is supposed to be transferred to his brand new ruins.
Well, it's his old library site which is supposed to be transferred to his brand new ruins.
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:37 PM (vFG9F)
239
234 If it’s paying for services rendered I have no issue with it. But it’s more than that. The lawsuit that started it it all wasn’t for the $2B. It was to reinstate all funding. The $2b is kind of a McGuffin.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:36 PM (/BeiT)
======
I really need you to read the order.
Because the actual order...says exactly that.
"On February 25, the
District Court ordered the Government to issue payments
for a portion of the paused disbursements—those owed for
work already completed before the issuance of the District
Court’s temporary restraining order—by 11:59 p.m. on February 26. "
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:36 PM (/BeiT)
======
I really need you to read the order.
Because the actual order...says exactly that.
"On February 25, the
District Court ordered the Government to issue payments
for a portion of the paused disbursements—those owed for
work already completed before the issuance of the District
Court’s temporary restraining order—by 11:59 p.m. on February 26. "
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:37 PM (GBKbO)
240
so, a nothingburger, blown up into a doom&gloom surprise by the enemedia? I kinda figured.
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at March 05, 2025 04:37 PM (RP0h0)
241
"The DOGE website did not provide a timetable for the closures, although a NARA spokesperson told Fox News Digital the Hoffman Estates library was scheduled to close in late Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 and move to College Park in Maryland. The government’s FY 2025 runs through Sept. 30, 2025."
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:37 PM (vFG9F)
242
Now, I think that case would have to be brought in the court of claims, and not a general district court, but the idea that the president is immune from having to pay for work already done is fanciful to say the least.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:31 PM (iFTx/)
Is that the reason behind them getting into the nitty gritty of what is actually being paid for?
Some might be legit work that got done. Some might be legit work that got neglected or postponed. Some might not even be legitimate at all. What is Uncle Sam actually on the hook for? Is that the question they're trying to get at?
Posted by: Warai-otoko at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (KtIIi)
________
Yes, I think. The majority decision is ambiguous, but the way I read it in the context of the case is they want to know exactly which payments Trump is supposed to make for work supposedly already done. Because the distinction b/t actual work done and work not done is important.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:31 PM (iFTx/)
Is that the reason behind them getting into the nitty gritty of what is actually being paid for?
Some might be legit work that got done. Some might be legit work that got neglected or postponed. Some might not even be legitimate at all. What is Uncle Sam actually on the hook for? Is that the question they're trying to get at?
Posted by: Warai-otoko at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (KtIIi)
________
Yes, I think. The majority decision is ambiguous, but the way I read it in the context of the case is they want to know exactly which payments Trump is supposed to make for work supposedly already done. Because the distinction b/t actual work done and work not done is important.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:38 PM (iFTx/)
243
That right there is what the left plans, steal the leflislature in 26. Then it’s business as usual again in Washington City.
Posted by: Eromero at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (LHPAg)
It is what they always plan. sure. But even if they do it that doesn't mean they can stop him. Keep adding good candidates and contend in bluish seats. Their funding plan of using USAID is closed, and we can investigate any other thing they cook up for foreign or criminal violations. And cull the voting rolls everywhere for the 111 year old people.
Posted by: Eromero at March 05, 2025 04:33 PM (LHPAg)
It is what they always plan. sure. But even if they do it that doesn't mean they can stop him. Keep adding good candidates and contend in bluish seats. Their funding plan of using USAID is closed, and we can investigate any other thing they cook up for foreign or criminal violations. And cull the voting rolls everywhere for the 111 year old people.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:38 PM (n7h9X)
244
Now, I think that case would have to be brought in the court of claims, and not a general district court, but the idea that the president is immune from having to pay for work already done is fanciful to say the least.
-
We The People have the inherent Right to alter or abolish the government (which includes all the NGO vermin) at any time and by any manner of our choosing should we determine we need to. Trump is the option currently available. So he most certainly is within our Rights to tell the grifters to go pound sand.
We similarly can vote to end SS or Medicare, or default on the debt that others had chosen to accumulate.
-
We The People have the inherent Right to alter or abolish the government (which includes all the NGO vermin) at any time and by any manner of our choosing should we determine we need to. Trump is the option currently available. So he most certainly is within our Rights to tell the grifters to go pound sand.
We similarly can vote to end SS or Medicare, or default on the debt that others had chosen to accumulate.
Posted by: Methos, definitely doesn't have a 360yo SSN at March 05, 2025 04:39 PM (Dnobf)
245
And in Catholicism we have a single leader that can define something you must believe to be a Catholic.
Posted by: Oldcat
Too bad that that current leader is a commie apostate.
Makes me glad I'm a Protestant.
Posted by: Oldcat
Too bad that that current leader is a commie apostate.
Makes me glad I'm a Protestant.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:39 PM (77rzZ)
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:39 PM (6epxM)
247
TERMINATED the lease on the Obama Presidential Library site in Chicago, per Fox"
Now throw his ass off of Martha's vineyard.
Now throw his ass off of Martha's vineyard.
Posted by: Commissar of Plenty and Lysenkoism in Solidarity with the Struggle for festive little hats at March 05, 2025 04:39 PM (ZGwhj)
248
alexandriabrown
@alexthechick
I just read the order in State vs AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and, from a quick read, the majority punted it back down to the District Court for a clarification order based on mootness since the deadline passed. This is procedural gamesmanship to avoid dealing directly with the underlying conduct.
Alito's dissent on this?
He. Is. Pissed. He is pissed at the majority. He is pissed at the District Court. He made as clear as possible what his position is when this goes up.
I am sick of hearing about how Roberts wants to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court.
He fails at every turn to take actions that would do so.
He is a coward.
Also, all that is going to happen is this is going to be back up by this Friday since the District Court Judge is going to be emboldened to clarify that payment has to be made by close of business today or tomorrow.
alexandriabrown
@alexthechick
I just read the order in State vs AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and, from a quick read, the majority punted it back down to the District Court for a clarification order based on mootness since the deadline passed. This is procedural gamesmanship to avoid dealing directly with the underlying conduct.
Alito's dissent on this?
He. Is. Pissed. He is pissed at the majority. He is pissed at the District Court. He made as clear as possible what his position is when this goes up.
I am sick of hearing about how Roberts wants to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court.
He fails at every turn to take actions that would do so.
He is a coward.
Also, all that is going to happen is this is going to be back up by this Friday since the District Court Judge is going to be emboldened to clarify that payment has to be made by close of business today or tomorrow.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:39 PM (CQE5S)
249
One of Scalia’s best dissents stated that SCOTUS had made itself into a super-legislature. But it isn’t just SCOTUS; it’s the entire judiciary. And it isn’t just a super-legislature, it’s a super-executive.
Every action of Congress or the President goes to these unelected black-robed judges, to give their thumbs-up or thumbs-down.
Some say “Don’t worry: they haven’t given a thumbs-up or down, yet. They’ve merely instructed their coven to engage in more deliberations on the matter. This is all normal legal stuff, a continuation of the status quo.”
*That* is what we object to. The status quo has screwed us over for over a century. The judiciary is the pawl of the leftist “ratchet”: commies push us to the left and then the courts enshrine that as the unassailable status quo.
Every action of Congress or the President goes to these unelected black-robed judges, to give their thumbs-up or thumbs-down.
Some say “Don’t worry: they haven’t given a thumbs-up or down, yet. They’ve merely instructed their coven to engage in more deliberations on the matter. This is all normal legal stuff, a continuation of the status quo.”
*That* is what we object to. The status quo has screwed us over for over a century. The judiciary is the pawl of the leftist “ratchet”: commies push us to the left and then the courts enshrine that as the unassailable status quo.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:40 PM (l3YAf)
250
Yes, I think. The majority decision is ambiguous, but the way I read it in the context of the case is they want to know exactly which payments Trump is supposed to make for work supposedly already done. Because the distinction b/t actual work done and work not done is important.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:38 PM (iFTx/)
They can do that from the start on TROs. Ask instantly what exactly the TRO wants to do and how. Make the system work for you. Why do these random judges get priority over other cases in 20 minutes when citizens can be put out forever.
Posted by: Elric Blade at March 05, 2025 04:38 PM (iFTx/)
They can do that from the start on TROs. Ask instantly what exactly the TRO wants to do and how. Make the system work for you. Why do these random judges get priority over other cases in 20 minutes when citizens can be put out forever.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:40 PM (n7h9X)
251
The answer to that question should be an emphatic "No," but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise," he wrote.
----------------
Unfortunately, the majority is composed of five weak-ass sisters.
----------------
Unfortunately, the majority is composed of five weak-ass sisters.
Posted by: ShainS -- DataRepublican for Attorney General! at March 05, 2025 04:41 PM (U63XN)
252
249 *That* is what we object to. The status quo has screwed us over for over a century. The judiciary is the pawl of the leftist “ratchet”: commies push us to the left and then the courts enshrine that as the unassailable status quo.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:40 PM (l3YAf)
========
And everyone arguing with you understands that.
We just also understand that changing this in the next month is not going to happen.
So, we're arguing feasible outcomes, not pipedreams of overturning Marbury v Madison.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:40 PM (l3YAf)
========
And everyone arguing with you understands that.
We just also understand that changing this in the next month is not going to happen.
So, we're arguing feasible outcomes, not pipedreams of overturning Marbury v Madison.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:41 PM (GBKbO)
253
210 Show the proof that these AIDS clinics exist. I'd be willing to bet that many do not and the money is being given to a no show NGO.
Posted by: ryukyu at March 05, 2025 04:31 PM (M/bod)
——-
I think that is what is going to happen. The judge will now be required to do due diligence on the spending to make sure there wasn’t any fraud and the NGO is going to say “never mind” because they don’t want the judge to look into anything.
The only alternative is for the judge to write the injunction in a way that reserves the authority of the Trump admin to review spending for fraudulent activities. Which the Trump admin will certainly do.
So I think this is win for Trump.
Posted by: ryukyu at March 05, 2025 04:31 PM (M/bod)
——-
I think that is what is going to happen. The judge will now be required to do due diligence on the spending to make sure there wasn’t any fraud and the NGO is going to say “never mind” because they don’t want the judge to look into anything.
The only alternative is for the judge to write the injunction in a way that reserves the authority of the Trump admin to review spending for fraudulent activities. Which the Trump admin will certainly do.
So I think this is win for Trump.
Posted by: MAGA_Ken at March 05, 2025 04:41 PM (ZHVrD)
254
204 If legal rulings were written in PLAIN ENGLISH, then we'd avoid a ton of confusion.
Instead, they are all written in complex legalese that makes Ithkuil look simple.
No wonder no one really knows what any of these rulings says or means.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at March 05, 2025 04:30 PM (7fElN)
Coulda/shoulda/woulda been a lawyer!
Instead, they are all written in complex legalese that makes Ithkuil look simple.
No wonder no one really knows what any of these rulings says or means.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at March 05, 2025 04:30 PM (7fElN)
Coulda/shoulda/woulda been a lawyer!
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (CQE5S)
255
Pakistan: Muslim cleric who repeatedly supported jihad suicide attack is killed in jihad suicide attack -
Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 05, 2025 04:36 PM (mlg/3)
Baby, I love you
But if you wanna leave, take good care
Hope you make a lot of nice friends out there
But just remember there's a lot of bad and beware, beware...
Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 05, 2025 04:36 PM (mlg/3)
Baby, I love you
But if you wanna leave, take good care
Hope you make a lot of nice friends out there
But just remember there's a lot of bad and beware, beware...
Posted by: Yuseuf Islam, Asshole at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (EEZHI)
256
At least we'll get to find out, in exacting detail, to whom this money is laundered.
Posted by: t-bird at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (KtPtl)
257
Remember all the "caravan" bullshit?
Another "caravan" is on their way! Nothing we can do about it!
Where are all these "spontaneous" "caravans" now??
Remember all the "caravan" bullshit?
Another "caravan" is on their way! Nothing we can do about it!
Where are all these "spontaneous" "caravans" now??
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (6epxM)
258
So the judge sets specific policy now on who gets paid and who doesn’t. Which is what Alito said.
--
No.
Because the TRO was "pay them now. Figure out if it was proper, later."
If they have to show "pay them for what?" the whole basis of the TRO goes away.
Because that a mere payment dispute. And you don't get TROs to order payment.
Ever.
No matter how much money you are out or owed.
After trial. Not before. If you win.
These TROs were on very thin ice of "procedures for not issuing payment were not followed." And skipped over everything else. And the appeal court did the same.
And this order is a "are we sure there is a case in controversy here and a basis for a TRO?"
--
No.
Because the TRO was "pay them now. Figure out if it was proper, later."
If they have to show "pay them for what?" the whole basis of the TRO goes away.
Because that a mere payment dispute. And you don't get TROs to order payment.
Ever.
No matter how much money you are out or owed.
After trial. Not before. If you win.
These TROs were on very thin ice of "procedures for not issuing payment were not followed." And skipped over everything else. And the appeal court did the same.
And this order is a "are we sure there is a case in controversy here and a basis for a TRO?"
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (wDiNp)
259
258 These TROs were on very thin ice of "procedures for not issuing payment were not followed." And skipped over everything else. And the appeal court did the same.
And this order is a "are we sure there is a case in controversy here and a basis for a TRO?"
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (wDiNp)
=====
I'm not even a lawyer, and I figured that out.
By reading the order.
And this order is a "are we sure there is a case in controversy here and a basis for a TRO?"
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (wDiNp)
=====
I'm not even a lawyer, and I figured that out.
By reading the order.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:43 PM (GBKbO)
260
Getcher DOGE on!
@DOGE
Weekly Credit Card Update!
Pilot program has been expanded to 16 agencies to audit unused/unneeded credit cards. After 2 weeks, ~146,000 cards have been de-activated.
As a reminder, at the start of the audit, there were ~4.6M active cards/accounts, so still more work to do.
@DOGE
Weekly Credit Card Update!
Pilot program has been expanded to 16 agencies to audit unused/unneeded credit cards. After 2 weeks, ~146,000 cards have been de-activated.
As a reminder, at the start of the audit, there were ~4.6M active cards/accounts, so still more work to do.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 05, 2025 04:44 PM (mlg/3)
261
*That* is what we object to. The status quo has screwed us over for over a century. The judiciary is the pawl of the leftist “ratchet”: commies push us to the left and then the courts enshrine that as the unassailable status quo.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:40 PM (l3YAf)
That's only because we make it easy. If that judge has to work 20 hours a week on this TRO, if people can't judge shop to get a TRO in the first place it would be far less useful. If the district supreme justice had to give a quick "this is nonsense, try again" ruling before it took effect, they wouldn't have a way to block things on time.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:40 PM (l3YAf)
That's only because we make it easy. If that judge has to work 20 hours a week on this TRO, if people can't judge shop to get a TRO in the first place it would be far less useful. If the district supreme justice had to give a quick "this is nonsense, try again" ruling before it took effect, they wouldn't have a way to block things on time.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:44 PM (n7h9X)
262
I guess we will have to kill Stacy Abrams. Then the case has no standing, rite?
Posted by: Pudinhead at March 05, 2025 04:44 PM (pLaQB)
263
Open Source Intel
@Osint613
BREAKING 🔴🔴
Trump is set to make a major announcement soon on the hostage deal. - Axios
1:40 PM · Mar 5, 2025
·
Israel News Pulse
@israelnewspulse
Sources in Hamas told the Saudi channel Al-Sharq that the terrorist organization agreed to release hostages with American citizenship if they received a commitment that it would lead to the implementation of the second phase of the hostage deal.
The sources added that Hamas submitted a proposal to the U.S. for a long-term ceasefire agreement in Gaza in response to the demand for the organization to disarm.
1:24 PM · Mar 5, 2025
@Osint613
BREAKING 🔴🔴
Trump is set to make a major announcement soon on the hostage deal. - Axios
1:40 PM · Mar 5, 2025
·
Israel News Pulse
@israelnewspulse
Sources in Hamas told the Saudi channel Al-Sharq that the terrorist organization agreed to release hostages with American citizenship if they received a commitment that it would lead to the implementation of the second phase of the hostage deal.
The sources added that Hamas submitted a proposal to the U.S. for a long-term ceasefire agreement in Gaza in response to the demand for the organization to disarm.
1:24 PM · Mar 5, 2025
Posted by: BetaCuck4Lyfe at March 05, 2025 04:45 PM (9aVck)
264
@242
>> Is that the reason behind them getting into the nitty gritty of what is actually being paid for?
Who gives a sh*t about what work was done, the moneys in question are granted not congressionally delineated expenditures or contracts for a service or product.
The only service or product is the payoffs and kickbacks the money gets slipstreamed to all of the big guys and girls.
This scotus order is lawless.
>> Is that the reason behind them getting into the nitty gritty of what is actually being paid for?
Who gives a sh*t about what work was done, the moneys in question are granted not congressionally delineated expenditures or contracts for a service or product.
The only service or product is the payoffs and kickbacks the money gets slipstreamed to all of the big guys and girls.
This scotus order is lawless.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at March 05, 2025 04:45 PM (AC4hi)
265
Pilot program has been expanded to 16 agencies to audit unused/unneeded credit cards. After 2 weeks, ~146,000 cards have been de-activated.
How many Civil War veterans are now without food!
How many Civil War veterans are now without food!
Posted by: t-bird at March 05, 2025 04:46 PM (KtPtl)
266
@jarvis_best has a very funny revision of Alito's dissent. Screenshot, so I can't cut and paste it.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:46 PM (CQE5S)
267
Remember all the "caravan" bullshit?
Another "caravan" is on their way! Nothing we can do about it!
Where are all these "spontaneous" "caravans" now??
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (6epxM)
Tell Mexico to stop them now and start processing them for criminal illegals. Or Tariffs. Then send the remainder to the point they need to go to, in a nation adjacent to their 'refugee' start point.
Another "caravan" is on their way! Nothing we can do about it!
Where are all these "spontaneous" "caravans" now??
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (6epxM)
Tell Mexico to stop them now and start processing them for criminal illegals. Or Tariffs. Then send the remainder to the point they need to go to, in a nation adjacent to their 'refugee' start point.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:46 PM (n7h9X)
268
I'm not even a lawyer, and I figured that out.
By reading the order.
------------
You're probably one of those weirdos who reads the content before typing "First!" too, right?
By reading the order.
------------
You're probably one of those weirdos who reads the content before typing "First!" too, right?
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:47 PM (azSra)
269
Where am I gonna display my 15-page memoir and Barry's Greatest Hits that I gave to the Queen?
Posted by: Notorious BFD at March 05, 2025 04:47 PM (mH6SG)
Posted by: t-bird at March 05, 2025 04:48 PM (KtPtl)
271
257 Remember all the "caravan" bullshit?
Another "caravan" is on their way! Nothing we can do about it!
Where are all these "spontaneous" "caravans" now??
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (6epxM)
Rack and pinion problems.
Another "caravan" is on their way! Nothing we can do about it!
Where are all these "spontaneous" "caravans" now??
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (6epxM)
Rack and pinion problems.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:48 PM (CQE5S)
272
Traditional jurisprudence dictates that Hawaiian judges have supremacy over the Executive Branch. I don't know why this went off the rails.
Posted by: torabora at March 05, 2025 04:48 PM (8PXhX)
273
*That* is what we object to. The status quo has screwed us over for over a century. The judiciary is the pawl of the leftist “ratchet”: commies push us to the left and then the courts enshrine that as the unassailable status quo.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:40 PM (l3YAf)
--------------
"Miss me yet?"
-- Anthony Kennedy (that asshat showed up at ast night's speech)
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 04:40 PM (l3YAf)
--------------
"Miss me yet?"
-- Anthony Kennedy (that asshat showed up at ast night's speech)
Posted by: ShainS -- DataRepublican for Attorney General! at March 05, 2025 04:48 PM (U63XN)
274
Pilot program has been expanded to 16 agencies to audit unused/unneeded credit cards. After 2 weeks, ~146,000 cards have been de-activated.
How many Civil War veterans are now without food!
Posted by: t-bird at March 05, 2025 04:46 PM (KtPtl)
DoD is probably handing out rations of hardtack, salt beef and dessicated vegetables and a pound of coffee a day in 20 states for the vets.
How many Civil War veterans are now without food!
Posted by: t-bird at March 05, 2025 04:46 PM (KtPtl)
DoD is probably handing out rations of hardtack, salt beef and dessicated vegetables and a pound of coffee a day in 20 states for the vets.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:48 PM (n7h9X)
275
FFS
@AutumnBobcat
I put "Megan Edwards" (the name of Amy Coney Barrett's sister) into the USAID NGO officer search tool created by @DataRepublican, and it came up with a Megan Edwards being involved with 3 NGOs that receive USAID money. Is this Megan Edwards her sister? If so, can this prove a conflict of interest, and can a proven conflict of interest be enough to have this ruling vacated and tried again without Coney Barrett?
@AutumnBobcat
I put "Megan Edwards" (the name of Amy Coney Barrett's sister) into the USAID NGO officer search tool created by @DataRepublican, and it came up with a Megan Edwards being involved with 3 NGOs that receive USAID money. Is this Megan Edwards her sister? If so, can this prove a conflict of interest, and can a proven conflict of interest be enough to have this ruling vacated and tried again without Coney Barrett?
Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 05, 2025 04:48 PM (mlg/3)
276
Sen. Bernie Moreno Introduces Bill to Ban Foreign Flags on Capitol Grounds
Posted by: Maj. Healey at March 05, 2025 04:49 PM (/U5Yz)
277
257 Remember all the "caravan" bullshit?
Another "caravan" is on their way! Nothing we can do about it!
Where are all these "spontaneous" "caravans" now??
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (6epxM)
Rack and pinion problems.
-----------
They put their plans in reverse.
Another "caravan" is on their way! Nothing we can do about it!
Where are all these "spontaneous" "caravans" now??
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 05, 2025 04:42 PM (6epxM)
Rack and pinion problems.
-----------
They put their plans in reverse.
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 04:49 PM (azSra)
278
Lol, Shalom Hamas is the new Aloha Snackbar?
Posted by: Warai-otoko at March 05, 2025 04:49 PM (KtIIi)
279
FFS
@AutumnBobcat
I put "Megan Edwards" (the name of Amy Coney Barrett's sister) into the USAID NGO officer search tool created by @DataRepublican, and it came up with a Megan Edwards being involved with 3 NGOs that receive USAID money. Is this Megan Edwards her sister? If so, can this prove a conflict of interest, and can a proven conflict of interest be enough to have this ruling vacated and tried again without Coney Barrett?
Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 05, 2025 04:48 PM (mlg/3)
That's a very common name
@AutumnBobcat
I put "Megan Edwards" (the name of Amy Coney Barrett's sister) into the USAID NGO officer search tool created by @DataRepublican, and it came up with a Megan Edwards being involved with 3 NGOs that receive USAID money. Is this Megan Edwards her sister? If so, can this prove a conflict of interest, and can a proven conflict of interest be enough to have this ruling vacated and tried again without Coney Barrett?
Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 05, 2025 04:48 PM (mlg/3)
That's a very common name
Posted by: BruceWayne at March 05, 2025 04:49 PM (MGB5H)
280
Is at a contract or is it a grant? Huge difference.
Posted by: Dworkin Barimen at March 05, 2025 04:50 PM (usqVd)
281
@jarvis_best
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 let alone common sense have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever to some do-nothing pointless NGOs) over 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer is obviously no to any reasonable person but apparently to the gals in the majority the answer is "maybe?" I am stunned how these ladies manage to tie their robes in the back without strangling themselves so I guess sure whatever let the bullshit resistance judges do whatever they want what the fuck do I know.
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 let alone common sense have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever to some do-nothing pointless NGOs) over 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer is obviously no to any reasonable person but apparently to the gals in the majority the answer is "maybe?" I am stunned how these ladies manage to tie their robes in the back without strangling themselves so I guess sure whatever let the bullshit resistance judges do whatever they want what the fuck do I know.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 04:50 PM (CQE5S)
Posted by: Bob Dylan at March 05, 2025 04:50 PM (pLaQB)
Posted by: Toad-0 at March 05, 2025 04:50 PM (cct0t)
284
Traditional jurisprudence dictates that Hawaiian judges have supremacy over the Executive Branch. I don't know why this went off the rails.
Posted by: torabora at March 05, 2025 04:48 PM (8PXhX)
----------------
What's Hawaiian for kritarchy?
[Insert paraphrased obligatory Benjamin Franklin quote here ...]
Posted by: torabora at March 05, 2025 04:48 PM (8PXhX)
----------------
What's Hawaiian for kritarchy?
[Insert paraphrased obligatory Benjamin Franklin quote here ...]
Posted by: ShainS -- DataRepublican for Attorney General! at March 05, 2025 04:51 PM (U63XN)
285
I have to admit, my jaw dropped. That's my President!
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (vFG9F)
It goes to show Obama was never serious about anything except lining his pockets. The dude only leases a plot and maybe had plans drawn up.
Mr. "I guess those shovel ready weren't so shovel ready tee hee". asshole
I have to admit, my jaw dropped. That's my President!
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (vFG9F)
It goes to show Obama was never serious about anything except lining his pockets. The dude only leases a plot and maybe had plans drawn up.
Mr. "I guess those shovel ready weren't so shovel ready tee hee". asshole
Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at March 05, 2025 04:51 PM (w4nzS)
286
‘ Justice Samuel Alito said in his dissent that he was "stunned" by the majority's decison.’
Trump needs to grab his power back or he’s going to have another term handcuffed by the left.
Trump needs to grab his power back or he’s going to have another term handcuffed by the left.
Posted by: Dr. Claw at March 05, 2025 04:52 PM (jbnUc)
Posted by: Pudinhead at March 05, 2025 04:53 PM (pLaQB)
288
I've read the decision and there is one thing that pops up . Other decisions have sent the case back for clarification. I think the supreme Court is setting this up for one decision laying out the administrative states limits. They've done it in overturning the Chevron decision and so many little black robed tyrants are chiming in they should get smacked back
Posted by: Smell the Glove at March 05, 2025 04:53 PM (O8bOp)
289
Trump is somehow making austerity and belt tightening fun.
He's focusing on nonsensical bullshit first, firing up the public appetite for axing budgets, getting the masses on his side. It's fun to watch.
He's focusing on nonsensical bullshit first, firing up the public appetite for axing budgets, getting the masses on his side. It's fun to watch.
Posted by: Warai-otoko at March 05, 2025 04:53 PM (KtIIi)
290
So, we're arguing feasible outcomes, not pipedreams of overturning Marbury v Madison.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:41 PM (
It's not about overturning judicial review. It was never legitimate or real. It's about disregarding it. Roosevelt and Jackson and Lincoln out front shoulda told ya.
It's not a pipe dream. It can be done from time to time. This current shit show is one of those times. If not this ruling, then some other one, and SOON.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, leading the proletariat with Eisenstein at March 05, 2025 04:41 PM (
It's not about overturning judicial review. It was never legitimate or real. It's about disregarding it. Roosevelt and Jackson and Lincoln out front shoulda told ya.
It's not a pipe dream. It can be done from time to time. This current shit show is one of those times. If not this ruling, then some other one, and SOON.
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at March 05, 2025 04:53 PM (BI5O2)
291
This kind of thing will stop if Trump finds out exactly what the Deep State has on Roberts.
Posted by: Toad-0 at March 05, 2025 04:50 PM (cct0t)
-------------
I remember after he fucked the nation over on DeathCare, there was some speculation about his Irish adopted children.
They probably have him diddling little kids on Epstein videos ...
Posted by: Toad-0 at March 05, 2025 04:50 PM (cct0t)
-------------
I remember after he fucked the nation over on DeathCare, there was some speculation about his Irish adopted children.
They probably have him diddling little kids on Epstein videos ...
Posted by: ShainS -- DataRepublican for Attorney General! at March 05, 2025 04:53 PM (U63XN)
292
To raise your blood pressure a bit:
The same judiciary that is dancing around all Kansas City like and singing "you gotta pay them their money" are the same hopping faggots that said "you, the taxpayer, who have been forced to pay Social Security taxes your whole life, you ain't owed shit."
The same judiciary that is dancing around all Kansas City like and singing "you gotta pay them their money" are the same hopping faggots that said "you, the taxpayer, who have been forced to pay Social Security taxes your whole life, you ain't owed shit."
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at March 05, 2025 04:54 PM (wDiNp)
293
229 "Elon Musk and DOGE have TERMINATED the lease on the Obama Presidential Library site in Chicago, per Fox"
I have to admit, my jaw dropped. That's my President!
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (vFG9F
Is the government responsible for leases for other presidential libraries? Are we terminating any other leases?
I have to admit, my jaw dropped. That's my President!
Posted by: fd at March 05, 2025 04:34 PM (vFG9F
Is the government responsible for leases for other presidential libraries? Are we terminating any other leases?
Posted by: Emmie at March 05, 2025 04:54 PM (Sf2cq)
294
So, we're arguing feasible outcomes, not pipedreams of overturning Marbury v Madison.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison
OK, this is a serious question that I've wanted to ask for a while. Y'all here dump on Marbury because it established "judicial review." Now, I realize that judicial review is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. However, what is the alternative? If we didn't have judicial review, couldn't Congress pass laws that were blatantly unconstitutional, but without any recourse for striking them down?
One fairly recent example I can think of where this comes into play was the Supreme Court case in the '90s in which the SCOTUS struck down the Presidential line-item veto, reasoning that the President cannot make changes to legislation presented to him, because that would constitute a legislative, not executive power, that the President is not authorized to exercise. I agree with that interpretation, so I believe that, in that case, judicial review worked. You want Presidential line-item veto power? Pass an amendment to the Constitution.
Please explain to me why judicial review, then, is a bad thing.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison
OK, this is a serious question that I've wanted to ask for a while. Y'all here dump on Marbury because it established "judicial review." Now, I realize that judicial review is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. However, what is the alternative? If we didn't have judicial review, couldn't Congress pass laws that were blatantly unconstitutional, but without any recourse for striking them down?
One fairly recent example I can think of where this comes into play was the Supreme Court case in the '90s in which the SCOTUS struck down the Presidential line-item veto, reasoning that the President cannot make changes to legislation presented to him, because that would constitute a legislative, not executive power, that the President is not authorized to exercise. I agree with that interpretation, so I believe that, in that case, judicial review worked. You want Presidential line-item veto power? Pass an amendment to the Constitution.
Please explain to me why judicial review, then, is a bad thing.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:54 PM (77rzZ)
295
The Obama library has some issues with the concrete work and I think there are lawsuits involved.
Posted by: MAGA_Ken at March 05, 2025 04:55 PM (ZHVrD)
296
18
‘The best thing is for Trump to pick a ruling - any ruling - and openly defy it. Loudly, publicly and intensely. Do whatever they say not do, and do it twice.‘
I’ve been saying this. Trump has to take this to the public and tell them some in the judiciary want to take away what we all won in the election. This is his do or die moment.
‘The best thing is for Trump to pick a ruling - any ruling - and openly defy it. Loudly, publicly and intensely. Do whatever they say not do, and do it twice.‘
I’ve been saying this. Trump has to take this to the public and tell them some in the judiciary want to take away what we all won in the election. This is his do or die moment.
Posted by: Dr. Claw at March 05, 2025 04:56 PM (jbnUc)
297
This mindset that money appropriated has to be spent is stupid.
Posted by: Martini Farmer at March 05, 2025 04:56 PM (Q4IgG)
298
They've done it in overturning the Chevron decision and so many little black robed tyrants are chiming in they should get smacked back
Posted by: Smell the Glove at March 05, 2025 04:53 PM (O8bOp)
Yes yes. The SCOTUS is going to slap these lower courts down hard. They're big mad! District judge is getting a spanking!
Bullshit.
Posted by: Smell the Glove at March 05, 2025 04:53 PM (O8bOp)
Yes yes. The SCOTUS is going to slap these lower courts down hard. They're big mad! District judge is getting a spanking!
Bullshit.
Posted by: Madame Mayhem (uppity wench) at March 05, 2025 04:57 PM (4XwPj)
299
And in Catholicism we have a single leader that can define something you must believe to be a Catholic.
Posted by: Oldcat
Too bad that that current leader is a commie apostate.
Makes me glad I'm a Protestant.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:39 PM (77rzZ)
We've had worse. Nothing's perfect but God.
Posted by: Oldcat
Too bad that that current leader is a commie apostate.
Makes me glad I'm a Protestant.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:39 PM (77rzZ)
We've had worse. Nothing's perfect but God.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:57 PM (n7h9X)
300
295 The Obama library has some issues with the concrete work and I think there are lawsuits involved.
--------------
Let the Pritzker's pay for Sparkies Library. Fuck that guy.
--------------
Let the Pritzker's pay for Sparkies Library. Fuck that guy.
Posted by: Pudinhead at March 05, 2025 04:57 PM (pLaQB)
Posted by: Baracky O'Cracky at March 05, 2025 04:57 PM (mH6SG)
302
291
‘ They probably have him diddling little kids on Epstein videos ...’
If that’s the case Roberts had fucking well better do right by Trump.
‘ They probably have him diddling little kids on Epstein videos ...’
If that’s the case Roberts had fucking well better do right by Trump.
Posted by: Dr. Claw at March 05, 2025 04:58 PM (jbnUc)
303
299 And in Catholicism we have a single leader that can define something you must believe to be a Catholic.
Posted by: Oldcat
Too bad that that current leader is a commie apostate.
Makes me glad I'm a Protestant.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:39 PM (77rzZ)
We've had worse. Nothing's perfect but God.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:57 PM (n7h9X)
Amen.
Posted by: Oldcat
Too bad that that current leader is a commie apostate.
Makes me glad I'm a Protestant.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:39 PM (77rzZ)
We've had worse. Nothing's perfect but God.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 04:57 PM (n7h9X)
Amen.
Posted by: Nova Local at March 05, 2025 04:58 PM (exHjb)
304
I forgot to order the rebar. Sigh.
Posted by: Baracky O'Cracky at March 05, 2025 04:57 PM (mH6SG)
----------
Obviously not the real Barack because there's no way you even know what rebar is.
I forgot to order the rebar. Sigh.
Posted by: Baracky O'Cracky at March 05, 2025 04:57 PM (mH6SG)
----------
Obviously not the real Barack because there's no way you even know what rebar is.
Posted by: blake - semi lurker in marginal standing (tT6L1) at March 05, 2025 05:00 PM (tT6L1)
305
Please explain to me why judicial review, then, is a bad thing.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:54 PM (77rzZ)
Because common law is terrible, and unworkable, and wholly incompatible with a Constitutional form of government. It was anathema to the founders for a damned good reason, and it's why Article III defines a Court that is far from coequal with the other two branches.
If there's to be a Constitutional crisis, then it should be fought out by the Congress and President, with plenty of input from voters, and the Court's input is not needed. At all.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:54 PM (77rzZ)
Because common law is terrible, and unworkable, and wholly incompatible with a Constitutional form of government. It was anathema to the founders for a damned good reason, and it's why Article III defines a Court that is far from coequal with the other two branches.
If there's to be a Constitutional crisis, then it should be fought out by the Congress and President, with plenty of input from voters, and the Court's input is not needed. At all.
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at March 05, 2025 05:00 PM (BI5O2)
306
The Obama library has some issues with the concrete work and I think there are lawsuits involved.
Posted by: MAGA_Ken at March 05, 2025 04:55 PM (ZHVrD)
Garden-variety shitty work quality, I figure. If it was about 30+ years ago there would be large voids in the slab. Man-sized voids, IYKWIM.
The Obama library has some issues with the concrete work and I think there are lawsuits involved.
Posted by: MAGA_Ken at March 05, 2025 04:55 PM (ZHVrD)
Garden-variety shitty work quality, I figure. If it was about 30+ years ago there would be large voids in the slab. Man-sized voids, IYKWIM.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 05, 2025 05:00 PM (y9nCu)
307
OK I will come second to none in contempt of judges who usurp executive department and anger at Hawaiian judges just using their position to attack Trump.
But this I think is a little different, and I'm surprised it wasn't 9-0. The work was done, the people who did the work are waiting for payment for the work they completed. Yeah it was lame work that shouldn't have been done, and the federal government shouldn't have required.
But they did the work and should get paid. Seems to me, at least.
But this I think is a little different, and I'm surprised it wasn't 9-0. The work was done, the people who did the work are waiting for payment for the work they completed. Yeah it was lame work that shouldn't have been done, and the federal government shouldn't have required.
But they did the work and should get paid. Seems to me, at least.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:01 PM (2VST1)
Posted by: mrp at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (rj6Yv)
309
Lexington, KY, has a Big Kahuna Hawaiian restaurant with an interesting menu. WTF? No Teriyaki Steak dish, though.
Posted by: Pudinhead at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (pLaQB)
310
The Obama library has some issues with the concrete work and I think there are lawsuits involved.
*gulp*
They're not going to go digging in those spots to re-do them, are they?
*gulp*
They're not going to go digging in those spots to re-do them, are they?
Posted by: Hillary! at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (hKf3k)
311
If there's to be a Constitutional crisis, then it should be fought out by the Congress and President, with plenty of input from voters, and the Court's input is not needed. At all.
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice
But what if Congress and the President agree on the "constitutionality" of a clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation?
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice
But what if Congress and the President agree on the "constitutionality" of a clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation?
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (77rzZ)
312
Kristy Noem visited Coney subway station today where the possessed illegal set that lady on fire.
Not bad for a former Democrat.
Trumps cabinet just getting warmed up.
Trump build himself a real posse.
Ride motherrfuckers RIDE!!!!
Not bad for a former Democrat.
Trumps cabinet just getting warmed up.
Trump build himself a real posse.
Ride motherrfuckers RIDE!!!!
Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (w4nzS)
313
Well, at least Jimmy Hoffa now has a proper resting place.
Posted by: Baracky O'Cracky at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (mH6SG)
314
"Please explain the precedent in that order without referring to Alito's dissent."
The precedent being set is not related to this specific issue, it has now been set allowing judges to rule on things outside their purview.
It's like waking up to fresh coffee, eggs and bacon then arguing over whether it was cooked in a pan or on the blackstone and as far as taste, we'll worry about that later.
When the real question is who are you and how did you get in my house?
The precedent being set is not related to this specific issue, it has now been set allowing judges to rule on things outside their purview.
It's like waking up to fresh coffee, eggs and bacon then arguing over whether it was cooked in a pan or on the blackstone and as far as taste, we'll worry about that later.
When the real question is who are you and how did you get in my house?
Posted by: FXDWG at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (xfTc5)
315
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
“Shalom Hamas” means Hello and Goodbye - You can choose. Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you. Only sick and twisted people keep bodies, and you are sick and twisted! I am sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job, not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say. I have just met with your former Hostages whose lives you have destroyed. This is your last warning! For the leadership, now is the time to leave Gaza, while you still have a chance. Also, to the People of Gaza: A beautiful Future awaits, but not if you hold Hostages. If you do, you are DEAD! Make a SMART decision. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW, OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER!
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
@realDonaldTrump
“Shalom Hamas” means Hello and Goodbye - You can choose. Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you. Only sick and twisted people keep bodies, and you are sick and twisted! I am sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job, not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say. I have just met with your former Hostages whose lives you have destroyed. This is your last warning! For the leadership, now is the time to leave Gaza, while you still have a chance. Also, to the People of Gaza: A beautiful Future awaits, but not if you hold Hostages. If you do, you are DEAD! Make a SMART decision. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW, OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER!
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Posted by: ShainS -- DataRepublican for Attorney General! at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (do9CM)
316
But what if Congress and the President agree on the "constitutionality" of a clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation?
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (77rzZ
Then the whole thing is fucked, and it's why we have a Second Amendment.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (77rzZ
Then the whole thing is fucked, and it's why we have a Second Amendment.
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at March 05, 2025 05:04 PM (BI5O2)
317
One more addition to the circular gallows. Each rope must be 40 feet long so their heads snap off like champagne corks.
Posted by: look whats not at March 05, 2025 05:04 PM (nakGR)
318
Kennedy (that asshat showed up at ast night's speech)
Posted by: ShainS -- DataRepublican for Attorney General! at March 05, 2025 04:48 PM (U63XN
Yeah what the fuck was up with that?
Posted by: ShainS -- DataRepublican for Attorney General! at March 05, 2025 04:48 PM (U63XN
Yeah what the fuck was up with that?
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 05:05 PM (/BeiT)
319
But what if Congress and the President agree on the "constitutionality" of a clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation?
The final authorities on constitutionality was meant to be the voters, the people. And if the ballot box doesn't work, well its time to water the tree of liberty. That was the original concept. Whether that is viable or not, is worth discussing.
The final authorities on constitutionality was meant to be the voters, the people. And if the ballot box doesn't work, well its time to water the tree of liberty. That was the original concept. Whether that is viable or not, is worth discussing.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:05 PM (2VST1)
320
307 ... I'm surprised it wasn't 9-0. The work was done, the people who did the work are waiting for payment for the work they completed. Yeah it was lame work that shouldn't have been done, and the federal government shouldn't have required.
But they did the work and should get paid. Seems to me, at least.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:01 PM (2VST1)
In Ace's interpretation:
He's claiming that the AIDS grifters already performed the work that "earns" them the $2 billion. The Supreme Court seems to be saying that if some work was performed, that must be compensated, but they want to know how much of the $2 billion would go to work already performed. It's not the full $2 billion, is it?
So the case goes back to the lawless lower court judge, where he'll play President again and decide how much of the $2 billion Trump must spend.
This does give the Supreme Court another crack at reversing his order, if he can't establish that services were already rendered or once again presumes Trump to spend the full $2 billion.
But they did the work and should get paid. Seems to me, at least.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:01 PM (2VST1)
In Ace's interpretation:
He's claiming that the AIDS grifters already performed the work that "earns" them the $2 billion. The Supreme Court seems to be saying that if some work was performed, that must be compensated, but they want to know how much of the $2 billion would go to work already performed. It's not the full $2 billion, is it?
So the case goes back to the lawless lower court judge, where he'll play President again and decide how much of the $2 billion Trump must spend.
This does give the Supreme Court another crack at reversing his order, if he can't establish that services were already rendered or once again presumes Trump to spend the full $2 billion.
Posted by: m at March 05, 2025 05:05 PM (CQE5S)
321
But what if Congress and the President agree on the "constitutionality" of a clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation?
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (77rzZ
Then the whole thing is fucked, and it's why we have a Second Amendment.
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice
Oh, brother.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (77rzZ
Then the whole thing is fucked, and it's why we have a Second Amendment.
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice
Oh, brother.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:06 PM (77rzZ)
322
I want a woman on SCOTUS like Margaret Thatcher instead of these squishes we have.
Posted by: JM in Illinois at March 05, 2025 05:06 PM (YtFHA)
323
The precedent being set is not related to this specific issue, it has now been set allowing judges to rule on things outside their purview.
I don't see it that way. I don't think this ruling changed anything, it just agreed that if you contract for work done, then when the work is done you pay it. Its a pretty simple and straight forward labor dispute.
I don't see it that way. I don't think this ruling changed anything, it just agreed that if you contract for work done, then when the work is done you pay it. Its a pretty simple and straight forward labor dispute.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:06 PM (2VST1)
324
But they did the work and should get paid. Seems to me, at least.
$2 billion of work... I wonder what the results look like.
$2 billion of work... I wonder what the results look like.
Posted by: t-bird at March 05, 2025 05:07 PM (7a3bZ)
325
So the case goes back to the lawless lower court judge, where he'll play President again and decide how much of the $2 billion Trump must spend.
This does give the Supreme Court another crack at reversing his order, if he can't establish that services were already rendered or once again presumes Trump to spend the full $2 billion.
Right, that's why I do not see this as some horrific precedent or agreement with judicial abuse of power. They did not endorse federal judges commanding what the president does in the executive department, it just is an agreement that contractors ought be paid for work that fulfills their contract.
This does give the Supreme Court another crack at reversing his order, if he can't establish that services were already rendered or once again presumes Trump to spend the full $2 billion.
Right, that's why I do not see this as some horrific precedent or agreement with judicial abuse of power. They did not endorse federal judges commanding what the president does in the executive department, it just is an agreement that contractors ought be paid for work that fulfills their contract.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:08 PM (2VST1)
326
The Supreme Court 'ruled' that.... they don't want to rule.
Once again Coward Roberts thinks that his precious 'integrity' of the court will be preserved if he just doesn't actually rule on issues.
So he punts them back to the lower courts, hoping that Somebody Else will save him from actually having to make a ruling.
Once again Coward Roberts thinks that his precious 'integrity' of the court will be preserved if he just doesn't actually rule on issues.
So he punts them back to the lower courts, hoping that Somebody Else will save him from actually having to make a ruling.
Posted by: DudeAbiding at March 05, 2025 05:08 PM (setIA)
327
The final authorities on constitutionality was meant to be the voters, the people. And if the ballot box doesn't work, well its time to water the tree of liberty. That was the original concept. Whether that is viable or not, is worth discussing.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor
So every freaking disputed court case has to go to a referendum or a revolt? You folks are not impressing me with your arguments here.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor
So every freaking disputed court case has to go to a referendum or a revolt? You folks are not impressing me with your arguments here.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:08 PM (77rzZ)
328
If AIDS has been cured, they've earned the money.
Posted by: t-bird at March 05, 2025 05:08 PM (7a3bZ)
329
$2 billion of work... I wonder what the results look like.
Well, as ACE points out, the dispute now is how much they ought to be paid or not. If the government was idiotic and overpaid them well that's something you address from this point on and in firings.
Well, as ACE points out, the dispute now is how much they ought to be paid or not. If the government was idiotic and overpaid them well that's something you address from this point on and in firings.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:08 PM (2VST1)
330
A few did. Washington was the first I think.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (/BeiT)
I thought every referendum failed. What year?
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:15 PM (/BeiT)
I thought every referendum failed. What year?
Posted by: ... at March 05, 2025 05:09 PM (lX8VI)
331
I don't see it that way. I don't think this ruling changed anything, it just agreed that if you contract for work done, then when the work is done you pay it. Its a pretty simple and straight forward labor dispute.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:06 PM (2VST1)
Which isn't under Ali's purview.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:06 PM (2VST1)
Which isn't under Ali's purview.
Posted by: BruceWayne at March 05, 2025 05:09 PM (MGB5H)
332
315 Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
“Shalom Hamas” means Hello and Goodbye - You can choose. Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you. Only sick and twisted people keep bodies, and you are sick and twisted! I am sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job, not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say. I have just met with your former Hostages whose lives you have destroyed. This is your last warning! For the leadership, now is the time to leave Gaza, while you still have a chance. Also, to the People of Gaza: A beautiful Future awaits, but not if you hold Hostages. If you do, you are DEAD! Make a SMART decision. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW, OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER!
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Posted by: ShainS -- DataRepublican for Attorney General! at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM
Damn! I'ma steal this format and send a text to that guy fucking with me in X.
@realDonaldTrump
“Shalom Hamas” means Hello and Goodbye - You can choose. Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you. Only sick and twisted people keep bodies, and you are sick and twisted! I am sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job, not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say. I have just met with your former Hostages whose lives you have destroyed. This is your last warning! For the leadership, now is the time to leave Gaza, while you still have a chance. Also, to the People of Gaza: A beautiful Future awaits, but not if you hold Hostages. If you do, you are DEAD! Make a SMART decision. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW, OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER!
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Posted by: ShainS -- DataRepublican for Attorney General! at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM
Damn! I'ma steal this format and send a text to that guy fucking with me in X.
Posted by: I'm Gumby Damn It! at March 05, 2025 05:10 PM (w4nzS)
333
One fairly recent example I can think of where this comes into play was the Supreme Court case in the '90s in which the SCOTUS struck down the Presidential line-item veto, reasoning that the President cannot make changes to legislation presented to him, because that would constitute a legislative, not executive power, that the President is not authorized to exercise. I agree with that interpretation, so I believe that, in that case, judicial review worked. You want Presidential line-item veto power? Pass an amendment to the Constitution.
Please explain to me why judicial review, then, is a bad thing.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:54 PM (77rzZ)
There also should be some limit to the size and cohesiveness in these bills. That's the main demand for the LIV is that bills are jamboree of odd subparts. They are made so late that literally nobody has read them all before they vote. This has to end.
I think a 'reconciliation' markup between executive and congress where the Prez can make it make a bill cleaner or require more votes to pass for parts or all of the bill would be good. It isn't all supposed to be entirely partisan, at some point all parties should want good law.
Please explain to me why judicial review, then, is a bad thing.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:54 PM (77rzZ)
There also should be some limit to the size and cohesiveness in these bills. That's the main demand for the LIV is that bills are jamboree of odd subparts. They are made so late that literally nobody has read them all before they vote. This has to end.
I think a 'reconciliation' markup between executive and congress where the Prez can make it make a bill cleaner or require more votes to pass for parts or all of the bill would be good. It isn't all supposed to be entirely partisan, at some point all parties should want good law.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 05:10 PM (n7h9X)
334
Why are people surprised at ACB's treachery? She pinged my woke sensors at the time of her nomination when so much was made of her Christian faith to get her past the rubes.
Of the six women who have been appointed to the Supreme Court every one of them has been a disappointment, some more than others. Being female does not help with being a good justice, it just means you are scared to offend the gate keepers.
Of the six women who have been appointed to the Supreme Court every one of them has been a disappointment, some more than others. Being female does not help with being a good justice, it just means you are scared to offend the gate keepers.
Posted by: Decaf at March 05, 2025 05:10 PM (unUNN)
335
What services? These are grants of money, these are not contracts. There is no contract with terms.
SHOW ME THE CONTRACTS!!
SHOW ME THE CONTRACTS!!
Posted by: Thomas Bender at March 05, 2025 05:10 PM (AC4hi)
336
What are the chances that the work to be done by the AIDS groups for the $2 billion was only vaguely specified or not specified at all and that the money was actually a grant rather than a quid pro quo contractual agreement. Slush fund money rather than compensation.
Posted by: muldoon at March 05, 2025 05:11 PM (/iMjX)
337
So, the thing giving the ability for a Judge to tell the President what to do, is a TRO or Judicial Order.
These powers are given to Judges by the 'Court Rules' which are created by the Supreme Court... and that Congress and a past President somehow gave the Power of Law.
So the Supreme Court is now deciding on how much Power it has given itself and its subordinate courts... where the hell is the check and balance? The Supremes, by the 'vote' of ONE Appointed Judge, have overthrown the Democracy..... just like they decided during Covid that Rights, are not Rights... they are given by the Government UNLESS the Government declares an emergency, which cannot be over ridden...
These powers are given to Judges by the 'Court Rules' which are created by the Supreme Court... and that Congress and a past President somehow gave the Power of Law.
So the Supreme Court is now deciding on how much Power it has given itself and its subordinate courts... where the hell is the check and balance? The Supremes, by the 'vote' of ONE Appointed Judge, have overthrown the Democracy..... just like they decided during Covid that Rights, are not Rights... they are given by the Government UNLESS the Government declares an emergency, which cannot be over ridden...
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 05, 2025 05:11 PM (QAkQ3)
338
324 But they did the work and should get paid. Seems to me, at least.
$2 billion of work... I wonder what the results look like.
Posted by: t-bird at March 05, 2025 05:07 PM (7a3bZ)
I was thinking the same..2b in work...gtfoh
$2 billion of work... I wonder what the results look like.
Posted by: t-bird at March 05, 2025 05:07 PM (7a3bZ)
I was thinking the same..2b in work...gtfoh
Posted by: A dude in MI at March 05, 2025 05:11 PM (/6GbT)
339
It isn't all supposed to be entirely partisan, at some point all parties should want good law.
-----------
Objection: Alleges "facts" not yet in evidence.
-----------
Objection: Alleges "facts" not yet in evidence.
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 05:12 PM (azSra)
340
There also should be some limit to the size and cohesiveness in these bills. That's the main demand for the LIV is that bills are jamboree of odd subparts. They are made so late that literally nobody has read them all before they vote. This has to end.
I think a 'reconciliation' markup between executive and congress where the Prez can make it make a bill cleaner or require more votes to pass for parts or all of the bill would be good. It isn't all supposed to be entirely partisan, at some point all parties should want good law.
Posted by: Oldcat
That makes sense. Thanks.
I think a 'reconciliation' markup between executive and congress where the Prez can make it make a bill cleaner or require more votes to pass for parts or all of the bill would be good. It isn't all supposed to be entirely partisan, at some point all parties should want good law.
Posted by: Oldcat
That makes sense. Thanks.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:12 PM (77rzZ)
341
I don't see it that way. I don't think this ruling changed anything, it just agreed that if you contract for work done, then when the work is done you pay it. Its a pretty simple and straight forward labor dispute.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:06 PM (2VST1)
Did the Administration send the NGOs a "stop work" order or terminate the contract? Because if they did, then the lower court will have to determine, through due process, whether any work was done and, if so, how much of the work is billable. And THAT ruling, if the case isn't dismissed in the meantime, will likely be appealed, again
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:06 PM (2VST1)
Did the Administration send the NGOs a "stop work" order or terminate the contract? Because if they did, then the lower court will have to determine, through due process, whether any work was done and, if so, how much of the work is billable. And THAT ruling, if the case isn't dismissed in the meantime, will likely be appealed, again
Posted by: mrp at March 05, 2025 05:12 PM (rj6Yv)
342
335 What services? These are grants of money, these are not contracts. There is no contract with terms.
SHOW ME THE CONTRACTS!!
Posted by: Thomas Bender at March 05, 2025 05:10 PM (AC4hi)
Show me the line item in the Congressional Budget that allocates this specific money, for this specific cause... because otherwise it is up to the administration to decide how to spend that money...
SHOW ME THE CONTRACTS!!
Posted by: Thomas Bender at March 05, 2025 05:10 PM (AC4hi)
Show me the line item in the Congressional Budget that allocates this specific money, for this specific cause... because otherwise it is up to the administration to decide how to spend that money...
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 05, 2025 05:12 PM (QAkQ3)
343
335
SHOW ME THE CONTRACTS!!
Posted by: Thomas Bender at
*******
You took the words right out of my mouth.
SHOW ME THE CONTRACTS!!
Posted by: Thomas Bender at
*******
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Posted by: muldoon at March 05, 2025 05:12 PM (/iMjX)
344
I want a woman on SCOTUS like Margaret Thatcher instead of these squishes we have.
Posted by: JM in Illinois at March 05, 2025 05:06 PM (YtFHA)
I accept the position and will work carefully to ensure that the Constitution is strictly honored.
Justice Mayhem: you wanna what now?
Demoncrat: babbles legal mumbo jumbo
Justice Mayhem: I don't see any of that, worded exactly asyou said, in my handy dandy pocket Constitution. So... Imma go with ...nope! Get the fuck outta here with that shit! Next!
Posted by: JM in Illinois at March 05, 2025 05:06 PM (YtFHA)
I accept the position and will work carefully to ensure that the Constitution is strictly honored.
Justice Mayhem: you wanna what now?
Demoncrat: babbles legal mumbo jumbo
Justice Mayhem: I don't see any of that, worded exactly asyou said, in my handy dandy pocket Constitution. So... Imma go with ...nope! Get the fuck outta here with that shit! Next!
Posted by: Madame Mayhem (uppity wench) at March 05, 2025 05:13 PM (4XwPj)
345
SCOTUS might have said: in cases like these, pay them for work actually performed and stop with the TROs.
Posted by: JM in Illinois at March 05, 2025 05:13 PM (YtFHA)
Posted by: Martini Farmer at March 05, 2025 05:13 PM (Q4IgG)
347
One-Trick Coney Rides Again! She comes from lefty Notre Dame so this is surprising X zero. Thanks for nothing, Federalist Society douchebags!
Posted by: The Sweetheart of Scrotus High at March 05, 2025 05:14 PM (LAlV8)
348
The Supreme Court 'ruled' that.... they don't want to rule.
Once again Coward Roberts thinks that his precious 'integrity' of the court will be preserved if he just doesn't actually rule on issues.
So he punts them back to the lower courts, hoping that Somebody Else will save him from actually having to make a ruling.
Posted by: DudeAbiding at March 05, 2025 05:08 PM (setIA)
We just need that "you lose a kidney for each ruling punted back" rule if the reason is stupid enough. Do it once ok, do it twice and you are out, or at a lower court like soccer does. At some point wasting time making flip decision deserves an auto-impeachment.
Once again Coward Roberts thinks that his precious 'integrity' of the court will be preserved if he just doesn't actually rule on issues.
So he punts them back to the lower courts, hoping that Somebody Else will save him from actually having to make a ruling.
Posted by: DudeAbiding at March 05, 2025 05:08 PM (setIA)
We just need that "you lose a kidney for each ruling punted back" rule if the reason is stupid enough. Do it once ok, do it twice and you are out, or at a lower court like soccer does. At some point wasting time making flip decision deserves an auto-impeachment.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 05:14 PM (n7h9X)
349
2012 WA state voted to legalize ghey marriage in a ballot measure.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 05:14 PM (/BeiT)
350
One-Trick Coney Rides Again! She comes from lefty Notre Dame so this is surprising X zero. Thanks for nothing, Federalist Society douchebags!
Posted by: The Sweetheart of Scrotus High at March 05, 2025 05:14 PM (LAlV
There are no non-lefty distinguished law schools these days.
Posted by: The Sweetheart of Scrotus High at March 05, 2025 05:14 PM (LAlV
There are no non-lefty distinguished law schools these days.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 05:14 PM (n7h9X)
351
So every freaking disputed court case has to go to a referendum or a revolt?
No, I'm going back before judges decided they were supposed to decide what the constitution says. Back before Marbury v Madison, back to when the founding fathers were alive. The original design of the system was that the citizens of the US were the final arbiters of constitutionality, not judges.
No, I'm going back before judges decided they were supposed to decide what the constitution says. Back before Marbury v Madison, back to when the founding fathers were alive. The original design of the system was that the citizens of the US were the final arbiters of constitutionality, not judges.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:15 PM (2VST1)
352
If you won't show respect to the brave black kid who fought cancer for 6 years, you don't get to cry 'Black Lives Matter'
Posted by: rickb223 at March 05, 2025 05:15 PM (3oPA9)
353
I can understand if the money is already spent you gotta pay the bill but going forward they can go fu k themselves.
Posted by: Jaimo at March 05, 2025 05:16 PM (sOA7y)
354
Where's Judge Smails when you need him ?
Posted by: jsg at March 05, 2025 05:17 PM (UJ+K5)
355
Did the Administration send the NGOs a "stop work" order or terminate the contract?
As I understand it, this is about work that was finished, not ongoing work. I am certain the contract was terminated, though.
Like Thomas Bender, I would like to see the contract in order to find out what this about, how much work was done, etc.
As I understand it, this is about work that was finished, not ongoing work. I am certain the contract was terminated, though.
Like Thomas Bender, I would like to see the contract in order to find out what this about, how much work was done, etc.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:17 PM (2VST1)
356
I agree with that interpretation, so I believe that, in that case, judicial review worked. You want Presidential line-item veto power? Pass an amendment to the Constitution.
Please explain to me why judicial review, then, is a bad thing.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:54 PM (77rzZ)
Well... Court rules have the force of law apparently... and are written by the Supreme Court... this authority was apparently delegated to the Supremes in a much prior administration.... and those rules are what the Judges are using to Force their Policy judgements onto the President.
Under Chevron... you are not supposed to be able to make rules that have the force of law, without specific guidance from Congress.... Can't seem to find the Congressional Act which a Prezzy Signed, that says that low Courts can order the President on POLICY issues.
Please explain to me why judicial review, then, is a bad thing.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 04:54 PM (77rzZ)
Well... Court rules have the force of law apparently... and are written by the Supreme Court... this authority was apparently delegated to the Supremes in a much prior administration.... and those rules are what the Judges are using to Force their Policy judgements onto the President.
Under Chevron... you are not supposed to be able to make rules that have the force of law, without specific guidance from Congress.... Can't seem to find the Congressional Act which a Prezzy Signed, that says that low Courts can order the President on POLICY issues.
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 05, 2025 05:17 PM (QAkQ3)
357
I don't see why any of this is addressable via TRO or injunctive relief. Your usual remedy for breach of contract is a lawsuit litigating the contract and damages, not upfront relief requiring immediate payment. If someone who owes you money breaches, you can be damn sure you are not getting a TRO requiring immediate payment.
Posted by: bear with asymmetrical balls at March 05, 2025 05:18 PM (QzM4s)
358
So, now every 2 bit judge can insert themselves into every cancelled contract.
Fuck that shit.
Now it's time for Trump to use every bit of offensive lawfare to destroy the contractors of this 2B$ robbery
and to put the fear of God in every other contractor.
Fuck that shit.
Now it's time for Trump to use every bit of offensive lawfare to destroy the contractors of this 2B$ robbery
and to put the fear of God in every other contractor.
Posted by: hatethedeepstate at March 05, 2025 05:19 PM (PjUrP)
359
Show me the line item in the Congressional Budget that allocates this specific money, for this specific cause
Or the constitutionality of the program to begin with. Which is where I would have argued it before court: we don't have to pay this because it was illegal to begin with and forbidden to the federal government.
Or the constitutionality of the program to begin with. Which is where I would have argued it before court: we don't have to pay this because it was illegal to begin with and forbidden to the federal government.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:19 PM (2VST1)
360
It isn't all supposed to be entirely partisan, at some point all parties should want good law.
-----------
Objection: Alleges "facts" not yet in evidence.
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 05:12 PM (azSra)
Should is not a fact, its a value judgement. But even if you are a crazy leftist, presumably you would want a leftist law to be able to stand a challenge and be specific so a rightwinger could not negate it or add a rule that your holistic chicken farm has an added phrase that says it should be bombed by jets every March 17th,
-----------
Objection: Alleges "facts" not yet in evidence.
Posted by: Crusader at March 05, 2025 05:12 PM (azSra)
Should is not a fact, its a value judgement. But even if you are a crazy leftist, presumably you would want a leftist law to be able to stand a challenge and be specific so a rightwinger could not negate it or add a rule that your holistic chicken farm has an added phrase that says it should be bombed by jets every March 17th,
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 05:19 PM (n7h9X)
361
I’m going on a limb here and say Alito knows more about this stuff than anyone here. So I will defer to his pinion.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
----------------
Alito should have been made the Chief Justice, not that weather vane Roberts. Just think where we would be today if that were the case.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 04:12 PM (/BeiT)
----------------
Alito should have been made the Chief Justice, not that weather vane Roberts. Just think where we would be today if that were the case.
Posted by: Decaf at March 05, 2025 05:19 PM (unUNN)
362
So, now every 2 bit judge can insert themselves into every cancelled contract.
To the best of my understanding, judges can ALWAYS rule on cancelled contracts, if at least one of the people in the contract take it to court.
To the best of my understanding, judges can ALWAYS rule on cancelled contracts, if at least one of the people in the contract take it to court.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:20 PM (2VST1)
363
The lower court judge was directed by the SC to review each of the contracts to see if work was done which would require payment. Nothing more , nothing less. If the judge rules it's limited to only a few contracts, it will die there. If not more SC involvement
Posted by: Smell the Glove at March 05, 2025 05:20 PM (O8bOp)
364
Back before Marbury v Madison, back to when the founding fathers were alive.
And we know what they thought how? What were their view on IDF, the CIA, COVID?
The Founding Fathers were great men, but they were not omniscient. Yes, they understood human nature, which doesn't change, by and large, but the factors that influence it today were simply not present in the late 18th Century.
And we know what they thought how? What were their view on IDF, the CIA, COVID?
The Founding Fathers were great men, but they were not omniscient. Yes, they understood human nature, which doesn't change, by and large, but the factors that influence it today were simply not present in the late 18th Century.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:21 PM (77rzZ)
365
357 I don't see why any of this is addressable via TRO or injunctive relief. Your usual remedy for breach of contract is a lawsuit litigating the contract and damages, not upfront relief requiring immediate payment. If someone who owes you money breaches, you can be damn sure you are not getting a TRO requiring immediate payment.
Posted by: bear with asymmetrical balls at March 05, 2025 05:18 PM (QzM4s)
Exactly. Which is why this is a dangerous precedent that scotus just blessed.
Posted by: bear with asymmetrical balls at March 05, 2025 05:18 PM (QzM4s)
Exactly. Which is why this is a dangerous precedent that scotus just blessed.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 05:21 PM (/BeiT)
366
I’m going on a limb here and say Alito knows more about this stuff than anyone here. So I will defer to his pinion.
That's a fair argument, although in theory John Roberts SHOULD know more about this than we do as well, as ought all the supreme court justices. I am not sure about some of them, of course.
That's a fair argument, although in theory John Roberts SHOULD know more about this than we do as well, as ought all the supreme court justices. I am not sure about some of them, of course.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:22 PM (2VST1)
367
In my book there is a gun.
My book shows you how to put a gun in to a book.
My book shows you how to put a gun in to a book.
Posted by: humphreyrobot at March 05, 2025 05:22 PM (hX3mo)
368
Hmmm.... interesting thought. It is Federal Law that folks are not supposed to profit from the fruits of illegal enterprises... and that money is NOT a debt, and in fact can be clawed back.
If the money is not specifically allocated, in the Budge, for the issue of that contract, then that money has been embezzled... which is a crime... as it was misappropriated (also a crime)....
So the Fruits of the crime, should be stopped from being paid...
Can a Judge ORDER you to do something you KNOW is illegal? Like..... oh.... aiding and abetting Illegal aliens?
If the money is not specifically allocated, in the Budge, for the issue of that contract, then that money has been embezzled... which is a crime... as it was misappropriated (also a crime)....
So the Fruits of the crime, should be stopped from being paid...
Can a Judge ORDER you to do something you KNOW is illegal? Like..... oh.... aiding and abetting Illegal aliens?
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 05, 2025 05:22 PM (QAkQ3)
369
Not to be trite, but if I’m Trump I’d waive my dick at the lower court judge and tell SCOTUS to scratch my ass. Let them play footsie with each other while I’m out trying to find the reaches of executive power.
Posted by: Vengeance at March 05, 2025 05:22 PM (seQ7t)
370
Alito should have been made the Chief Justice, not that weather vane Roberts. Just think where we would be today if that were the case.
Posted by: Decaf at March 05, 2025 05:19 PM (unUNN)
-------------
Yep. Still being screwed frequently thanks to that asshat W.
Reagan's greatest mistake: giving us the horrid Bushes ...
Posted by: Decaf at March 05, 2025 05:19 PM (unUNN)
-------------
Yep. Still being screwed frequently thanks to that asshat W.
Reagan's greatest mistake: giving us the horrid Bushes ...
Posted by: ShainS -- DataRepublican for Attorney General! at March 05, 2025 05:23 PM (Wt1U3)
Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at March 05, 2025 05:23 PM (63Dwl)
372
@355
>> Like Thomas Bender, I would like to see the contract in order to find out what this about, how much work was done, etc.
But that’s my point, none of these are contractually obligated expenditures, these moneys are disbursed through grants, by an executive agency usaid, there is literally no product or service that is exchanging in these interactions.
The court is construing grants to be contracts, which they are not and have never been viewed that way.
It would be as if alumni who grant money to colleges are legally obligated to continue sending money to rotgut colleges.
It’s preposterous.
>> Like Thomas Bender, I would like to see the contract in order to find out what this about, how much work was done, etc.
But that’s my point, none of these are contractually obligated expenditures, these moneys are disbursed through grants, by an executive agency usaid, there is literally no product or service that is exchanging in these interactions.
The court is construing grants to be contracts, which they are not and have never been viewed that way.
It would be as if alumni who grant money to colleges are legally obligated to continue sending money to rotgut colleges.
It’s preposterous.
Posted by: Thomas Bender at March 05, 2025 05:23 PM (AC4hi)
373
If the NGO did not provide invoices for services rendered then they are up shit creek.
If they are arguing they can’t pay THEIR vendors then we have another issue of why purported private organizations are given decision making power over public monies. Seems like that is an entire end run purpose of a Congress to begin with.
If they are arguing they can’t pay THEIR vendors then we have another issue of why purported private organizations are given decision making power over public monies. Seems like that is an entire end run purpose of a Congress to begin with.
Posted by: MAGA_Ken at March 05, 2025 05:23 PM (ZHVrD)
374
Did the Administration send the NGOs a "stop work" order or terminate the contract?
As I understand it, this is about work that was finished, not ongoing work. I am certain the contract was terminated, though.
Like Thomas Bender, I would like to see the contract in order to find out what this about, how much work was done, etc.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:17 PM (2VST1)
I think the freeze on USAID at the very start covers that. It was a stand down of everything with a few exceptions, and was amended when bad stop decisions were brought to their attention. So the first step, instead of the TRO was to bring forward the vital work this NGO does and then Trump would have let them continue. So there is no reason a TRO is necessary until such a request is made and Trump denies it.
As I understand it, this is about work that was finished, not ongoing work. I am certain the contract was terminated, though.
Like Thomas Bender, I would like to see the contract in order to find out what this about, how much work was done, etc.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:17 PM (2VST1)
I think the freeze on USAID at the very start covers that. It was a stand down of everything with a few exceptions, and was amended when bad stop decisions were brought to their attention. So the first step, instead of the TRO was to bring forward the vital work this NGO does and then Trump would have let them continue. So there is no reason a TRO is necessary until such a request is made and Trump denies it.
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 05:24 PM (n7h9X)
375
And we know what they thought how? What were their view on IDF, the CIA, COVID?
They wrote very extensively on these concepts. Their arguments and discussions on how to handle things are in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. From those arguments we learn concepts and frameworks upon which we make decisions upon.
For example, the US Constitution is not a list of powers among others that the federal government is allowed, it is a very specific and limited list of the ONLY Powers that the federal government is given by the people. Just to make sure that was extra clear, the 9th and 10th amendments very clearly stated this.
They wrote very extensively on these concepts. Their arguments and discussions on how to handle things are in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. From those arguments we learn concepts and frameworks upon which we make decisions upon.
For example, the US Constitution is not a list of powers among others that the federal government is allowed, it is a very specific and limited list of the ONLY Powers that the federal government is given by the people. Just to make sure that was extra clear, the 9th and 10th amendments very clearly stated this.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:24 PM (2VST1)
376
Back before Marbury v Madison, back to when the founding fathers were alive.
And we know what they thought how? What were their view on IDF, the CIA, COVID?
The Founding Fathers were great men, but they were not omniscient. Yes, they understood human nature, which doesn't change, by and large, but the factors that influence it today were simply not present in the late 18th Century.
Posted by: Bulg
We would probably have to disband all of those organizations. And if the government wanted them back, Congress would have to legislate and actually build them by the amendment process.
And we know what they thought how? What were their view on IDF, the CIA, COVID?
The Founding Fathers were great men, but they were not omniscient. Yes, they understood human nature, which doesn't change, by and large, but the factors that influence it today were simply not present in the late 18th Century.
Posted by: Bulg
We would probably have to disband all of those organizations. And if the government wanted them back, Congress would have to legislate and actually build them by the amendment process.
Posted by: rickb223 at March 05, 2025 05:24 PM (3oPA9)
377
John Marshall watched his political future go up in smoke in 1800. He was the only true Chief Justice, in that he was first among his "equals" on that Court, who practically ate from his hand.
So he finagled a way to vastly increase the power of his lifetime position, and preserve some dusty corner of government for his Federalists, by issuing a ruling that split the baby.
And now, because that bullshit ruling grew very old, we just pretend it's vital. It was never anything but intrigue.
So he finagled a way to vastly increase the power of his lifetime position, and preserve some dusty corner of government for his Federalists, by issuing a ruling that split the baby.
And now, because that bullshit ruling grew very old, we just pretend it's vital. It was never anything but intrigue.
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at March 05, 2025 05:24 PM (BI5O2)
378
This might be a gift. Show us the line item detail of goods and services were provided that add up to 2B.
Posted by: firehorse at March 05, 2025 05:24 PM (yssFs)
379
But what if Congress and the President agree on the "constitutionality" of a clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation?
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (77rzZ)
Oh well, I guess we’d better empower Federal judges to run the country for us, because we might make bad decisions.
There’s no mechanism to fully prevent the people from enacting un-Constitutional policy. And, yes, the courts do sometimes help us. But they hurt us far more often. Imagine if SCOTUS didn’t “skew conservative”? What if we had seven Sotomayors?
Ultimately, the safeguards of the Constitution are the people and their accountable representatives in the legislative and executive branches, along with 50 state governments, who are sovereign in their own right.
If you really want a reason to hate the courts, look no further than the gutting of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:03 PM (77rzZ)
Oh well, I guess we’d better empower Federal judges to run the country for us, because we might make bad decisions.
There’s no mechanism to fully prevent the people from enacting un-Constitutional policy. And, yes, the courts do sometimes help us. But they hurt us far more often. Imagine if SCOTUS didn’t “skew conservative”? What if we had seven Sotomayors?
Ultimately, the safeguards of the Constitution are the people and their accountable representatives in the legislative and executive branches, along with 50 state governments, who are sovereign in their own right.
If you really want a reason to hate the courts, look no further than the gutting of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at March 05, 2025 05:24 PM (l3YAf)
380
369 Not to be trite, but if I’m Trump I’d waive my dick at the lower court judge and tell SCOTUS to scratch my ass. Let them play footsie with each other while I’m out trying to find the reaches of executive power.
Posted by: Vengeance at March 05, 2025 05:22 PM (seQ7t)
So the Biden strategy re: student loan forgiveness
Posted by: Vengeance at March 05, 2025 05:22 PM (seQ7t)
So the Biden strategy re: student loan forgiveness
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 05:24 PM (/BeiT)
381
What kind of AiDS campaign cost this much anyway? How hard is it to print signs that read “don’t put your dick in another man’s ass or you’ll get AIDS”? I can do that with colored crayons and stick figures for that amount.
Posted by: Vengeance at March 05, 2025 05:26 PM (seQ7t)
382
Nobody has still answered my original question, above, as to why judicial review is inherently a bad thing.
[Correction of my previous post: I should have included the adverb "inherently" before "a bad thing," which I have here corrected.]
Somebody give me a good reason why unconstitutional legislation shouldn't be struck down by the Supreme Court.
[Correction of my previous post: I should have included the adverb "inherently" before "a bad thing," which I have here corrected.]
Somebody give me a good reason why unconstitutional legislation shouldn't be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:26 PM (77rzZ)
383
The court is construing grants to be contracts, which they are not and have never been viewed that way.
I don't know one way or another. It may very well be that any work done for the federal government by independent people is done through contract. It might be that precedent and previous court rulings presumes a contract or at least that the way the agreements and payments are made typically and inevitably are understood as a contract.
I don't know enough about it to even guess. But I suspect that the supreme court justices do.
I don't know one way or another. It may very well be that any work done for the federal government by independent people is done through contract. It might be that precedent and previous court rulings presumes a contract or at least that the way the agreements and payments are made typically and inevitably are understood as a contract.
I don't know enough about it to even guess. But I suspect that the supreme court justices do.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:26 PM (2VST1)
Posted by: Helena Handbasket at March 05, 2025 05:27 PM (Vqx30)
385
Can a Judge ORDER you to do something you KNOW is illegal? Like..... oh.... aiding and abetting Illegal aliens?
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 05, 2025 05:22 PM (QAkQ3)
That would be interesting, to assert that his part of the work is violating say immigration law. So we don't want to be an accomplice to a breaking of law, do we?
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 05, 2025 05:22 PM (QAkQ3)
That would be interesting, to assert that his part of the work is violating say immigration law. So we don't want to be an accomplice to a breaking of law, do we?
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 05:28 PM (n7h9X)
386
We would probably have to disband all of those organizations. And if the government wanted them back, Congress would have to legislate and actually build them by the amendment process.
Posted by: rickb223
I agree with this.
Posted by: rickb223
I agree with this.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:28 PM (77rzZ)
387
>> So the Biden strategy re: student loan forgiveness
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 05:24 PM (/BeiT)
Not really. The decisions on that matter were well grounded in a legal basis and some of the rulings were crystal clear. Biden just kept creating a different pretext every time, to the point the courts started saying what the fuck isn’t clear, retard?
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at March 05, 2025 05:24 PM (/BeiT)
Not really. The decisions on that matter were well grounded in a legal basis and some of the rulings were crystal clear. Biden just kept creating a different pretext every time, to the point the courts started saying what the fuck isn’t clear, retard?
Posted by: Vengeance at March 05, 2025 05:28 PM (seQ7t)
388
Nobody has still answered my original question, above, as to why judicial review is inherently a bad thing.
As to that, judicial review is a necessary part of the checks and balances of the three-branch government system. If the courts are not allowed to examine or question the executive department, then the system is broken.
That said, it cannot be a usurpation of power by the courts, they cannot make laws for the congress, they cannot decide how the executive department carries out its constitutional and lawful duties. And trying to do so is wrong and illegal, which is, I suspect what people are upset about here.
As to that, judicial review is a necessary part of the checks and balances of the three-branch government system. If the courts are not allowed to examine or question the executive department, then the system is broken.
That said, it cannot be a usurpation of power by the courts, they cannot make laws for the congress, they cannot decide how the executive department carries out its constitutional and lawful duties. And trying to do so is wrong and illegal, which is, I suspect what people are upset about here.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:29 PM (2VST1)
389
What kind of AiDS campaign cost this much anyway? How hard is it to print signs that read “don’t put your dick in another man’s ass or you’ll get AIDS”? I can do that with colored crayons and stick figures for that amount.
Posted by: Vengeance at March 05, 2025 05:26 PM (seQ7t)
The chance that an NGO has a campaign against aid going on is 0
Posted by: Vengeance at March 05, 2025 05:26 PM (seQ7t)
The chance that an NGO has a campaign against aid going on is 0
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 05:29 PM (n7h9X)
390
Somebody give me a good reason why unconstitutional legislation shouldn't be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:26 PM (77rzZ)
I have no problem with Judicial Review on Constitutional issues BY THE SUPREME COURT... but that is not what is happening. The Supremes are delegating an authority that ONLY they should wield, to much lower Courts with unelected Appointed very often Partisan Judges.
The ONLY Court that should be able to order the President on ANYTHING, is the Supremes... as they are the only Constitutionally created Court.... the other Courts derive their power from Supreme Court Rules (basis of TROs) as delegated to them by Congress....
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:26 PM (77rzZ)
I have no problem with Judicial Review on Constitutional issues BY THE SUPREME COURT... but that is not what is happening. The Supremes are delegating an authority that ONLY they should wield, to much lower Courts with unelected Appointed very often Partisan Judges.
The ONLY Court that should be able to order the President on ANYTHING, is the Supremes... as they are the only Constitutionally created Court.... the other Courts derive their power from Supreme Court Rules (basis of TROs) as delegated to them by Congress....
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 05, 2025 05:30 PM (QAkQ3)
391
Somebody give me a good reason why unconstitutional legislation shouldn't be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:26 PM (77rzZ)
——-
The power to repeal a law was only given to Congress.
Since that power was specified in the Constitution, that must necessarily remove all other possible avenues to remove a law.
Posted by: Bulg at March 05, 2025 05:26 PM (77rzZ)
——-
The power to repeal a law was only given to Congress.
Since that power was specified in the Constitution, that must necessarily remove all other possible avenues to remove a law.
Posted by: MAGA_Ken at March 05, 2025 05:31 PM (ZHVrD)
392
The guys got pardoned. What about the present crime, spending stolen money?
Can the top dick be sued in a civil court?
Can the top dick be sued in a civil court?
Posted by: humphreyrobot at March 05, 2025 05:36 PM (hX3mo)
393
That said, it cannot be a usurpation of power by the courts, they cannot make laws for the congress, they cannot decide how the executive department carries out its constitutional and lawful duties. And trying to do so is wrong and illegal, which is, I suspect what people are upset about here.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:29 PM (2VST1)
It is clear as glass that the entire op is a sham. The entire purpose is to obstruct the executive. You could always sue the government normally as a remedy for going to far. But you need real legal arguments that these TROs never do. And they never wait in line to be litigated, and there never is a defense presented because the restraints happen in the middle of the night. The judges are biased to the point of criminality. allowing the corrupt accuser to correct the pleading to clean it up effectively becoming the author of the TRO he judges. And there is no redress for anyone, the taxpayer gets no damages if they are defeated.
It would be just as unfair as before voting on a Dem bill the messenger just rewrote it to just add 2 divisions of troops to the army and the leftists didn't know what they were voting on
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at March 05, 2025 05:29 PM (2VST1)
It is clear as glass that the entire op is a sham. The entire purpose is to obstruct the executive. You could always sue the government normally as a remedy for going to far. But you need real legal arguments that these TROs never do. And they never wait in line to be litigated, and there never is a defense presented because the restraints happen in the middle of the night. The judges are biased to the point of criminality. allowing the corrupt accuser to correct the pleading to clean it up effectively becoming the author of the TRO he judges. And there is no redress for anyone, the taxpayer gets no damages if they are defeated.
It would be just as unfair as before voting on a Dem bill the messenger just rewrote it to just add 2 divisions of troops to the army and the leftists didn't know what they were voting on
Posted by: Oldcat at March 05, 2025 05:37 PM (n7h9X)
394
Did anyone drop an anchor?
Posted by: torabora at March 05, 2025 05:42 PM (8PXhX)
395
The Obama library has some issues with the concrete work and I think there are lawsuits involved.
Posted by: MAGA_Ken at March 05, 2025 04:55 PM (ZHVrD)
----------------
Yep. Concrete work done by grossly incompetent minority-owned contractor failed inspection and had to be redone; incompetent contractor cried "racism" and sued the inspection firm for the cost of making it right.
Posted by: MAGA_Ken at March 05, 2025 04:55 PM (ZHVrD)
----------------
Yep. Concrete work done by grossly incompetent minority-owned contractor failed inspection and had to be redone; incompetent contractor cried "racism" and sued the inspection firm for the cost of making it right.
Posted by: Bigsmith at March 05, 2025 05:48 PM (1Au9i)
396
ACE, Margot Cleveland and shipwreckedcrew are the ones to follow on Twitter for these court cases.
Trump never appealed the TRO before the Supreme Court, just the deadline. So John Roberts and of course Amy Barrett decided to do a limited decision.
Trump never appealed the TRO before the Supreme Court, just the deadline. So John Roberts and of course Amy Barrett decided to do a limited decision.
Posted by: MikeN at March 05, 2025 06:11 PM (HVZOH)
397
I've long been resigned that someone has goat and sheep photos of Roberts. But what the heck is the problem with Coney island?
Posted by: John Milton's Ghost at March 05, 2025 06:13 PM (JMjnq)
398
Also, this is not a class-action lawsuit. The 2 billion is more than the people who sued. Trump admin claims $250 million.
Posted by: MikeN at March 05, 2025 06:13 PM (HVZOH)
399
the Supremes signaled that they would require payment for services rendered ... thats all ... fairly basic contract stuff ... and even Trump wouldn't want to not pay for work already done ... I think they made it clear that Trump controls future contracts and payments ...
Posted by: The Dark Lord at March 06, 2025 11:19 AM (DBAaD)
400
No we shouldn't hang ourselves, we should hang the lawless and insane wanna be gods at SCOTUS. Its time to water the tree of liberty as Jefferson warned us. The judiciary that believes they are gods should be given the opportunity to demonstrate their immortality.
Posted by: TJ Jackson at March 06, 2025 02:02 PM (OzHHo)
Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.0715 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.017 seconds, 408 records returned.
Page size 242 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat