SCOTUS Traitors 'Liberals' Unfreeze $2BN USAID Foreign-Aid Payments [As Usual Corrupt Traitors Barrett and Roberts Joined the Corrupt Leftist Traitors In Stealing Your Money AGAIN] D.C. NIFO
Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 1 week ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"In a 5-4 vote, The US Supreme Court refused to bolster President Donald Trump’s foreign-aid freeze, reinstating a lower court order that requires the quick disbursement of as much as $2 billion owed to contractors for already completed work.
Over four dissents, the justices rejected Trump’s request to toss out the trial court order, which affects money owed by the US Agency for International Development and State Department.
The dissent by Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh was extremely strongly worded:
Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?
The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise.
I am stunned.
...
Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.
The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response.
A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance.
Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them.
I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Barrett sided with the liberal members of the court. "
"In a 5-4 vote, The US Supreme Court refused to bolster President Donald Trump’s foreign-aid freeze, reinstating a lower court order that requires the quick disbursement of as much as $2 billion owed to contractors for already completed work.
Over four dissents, the justices rejected Trump’s request to toss out the trial court order, which affects money owed by the US Agency for International Development and State Department.
The dissent by Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh was extremely strongly worded:
Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?
The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise.
I am stunned.
...
Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.
The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response.
A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance.
Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them.
I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Barrett sided with the liberal members of the court. "
The wording is basically "Tighten your request up, or 4 of us (all that is required to hear another APPEAL), will take up the next appeal".
So, they forced the Judge to rewrite the order, REDUCING it's scope, and being REALISTIC (cannot say by tomorrow). And then push it again.
BUT this gives Trumps Team the ability to APPEAL it if you fail to do this. Having 4 Strong Dissents means they will take it back up!
It could have been a political play. Looks good for Dems, without giving them what they really wanted. NICE TAKE!
That would cure all such wasteful [corrupt] spending for a long time.
(Not to mention the ridiculous bullshit political maneuvering.)
I refuse to get black pilled. We have like 600 Wins, and 5-6 Fouls/Wounds. If we keep at the current pace, I can't fathom what JUNE will bring.
The Dems are on the wrong side of EVERY argument. Now the dems don't want to talk because they are embarrassed!
TBH, shutting it off in FEB or MAR or APR is NOT the issue. As long as it is shut off NOW, and then we get Congress to rule to KEEP IT OFF, in 2025, we will win BIGLY.
These fights are to be expected. I have an old friend whose son is likely to lose his job because of these cuts... He is having a hard time, because he wants to tell his son "Dude! You are PART of the problem! Go get a REAL JOB!"
They (his sons family) would not let him come to Thanksgiving during covid and for 2 yrs after because he refused to get vaccinated. He followed my cue of D3, Zinc, C, etc. He never even got sick, in his 80s... His sons family have ALL had Covid multiple times. LMAO.
Re-training them will be a great challenge that will last for decades.
Finding people who can think to do the training (and have the patience to succeed) will likely be difficult.
so now follow the money, right back to the hands of democrats
charge them as needed for their corruption and theft
Just a thought, because nothing else makes any sense!
Why was this issue important enough to be reviewed and a decision given by the traitorous supreme court,
but NONE OF THE CHALLENGES TO THE 2020 ELECTION WERE IMPORTANT ENOUGH FOR SUCH A DECISION?
I say pay for work done. Cancel future payments on work not done like the article says, "The ruling compels the Government to release funds for work that had already been completed before February 13, 2025. However, it does not block the administration from continuing to pause or cut future foreign assistance. Trump’s broader agenda of cutting USAID funding may continue for projects that were not yet underway."
That is one issue, but there is another and that is, "Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?" I would say no, but there has to be an avenue of redress for people who worked or supplied equipment and didn't get paid.
Bottom line: Pay for the work, but like mhubb says: "Follow the money".
Given they were USAID, there might be less than $100 due.
Maybe not for that latest Woke joke for a D.E.I. "I don't know what a woman is" SCOTUS appointee. Why pay off someone who can be that intimidated?
I am with mcc on this one -
contract signed, work done as specified,
payment as specified must be made.
But still worth asking, under what conditions could such a contract be challenged in law? Coercion, deception, .. yes some, but not easy to prove.
which means that must be verified.
If the carpenter is to be paid $500,000 for building a small backdrop then he may be involved
in money laundering and/or other crime and should not be paid.
In every case, evidence must be presented of actual completion of work for a price that is
competitive in the market.
That said, the delay in payment for bona-fide work must not be excessive.
Next, stop granting money to this crap in the first place. Clean up the current mess and end it.
but then the decisions would get reversed as soon as the Gulchers went back to productive pursuits.
Or is it evidence of a crime?
Given the previous actions of USAID, every such contract must be examined very closely before payment.
When you agree to a contract, you are bound. Prices, climate, opinions all change but the contract is to be fulfilled.
As I see it, a contract concerning an illegal act cannot be enforced in law, (but I think Dagny would keep it). Maybe a contractor out for USAID money knows, or should know that fraud is at the heart of the matter - but the onus of proof is on proving that.
I ask: how would you feel if you did your job, and you weren't paid? I know for myself, I expected to be paid for my work.
and just what work was done??
we've seen what USAID was paying for.....
we've NOT seen where the money REALLY goes
or do you think the head of USAID has a netwoth of millions on a $160,000 a year salary
was the expenditure constitutional?
i'd bet nope
a question SCOTUS refuses to ever address it seems