Did SCOTUS look at the expenditures by USAID?

[healthmyths]

Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment​

Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the court’s three liberals in backing a federal judge’s order that requires the administration to begin repaying global health groups nearly $2 billion for completed work.

Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment

A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a request by the Trump administration to lift an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had directed the State […]

www.scotusblog.com

Trump cut lifesaving foreign aid as State Department planned to buy expensive art for embassies

Now part of the $2 billion that SCOTUS said could not be halted from being paid included...

"But at least initially, the budget for expensive artwork to hang in U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide remained robust.
The State Department planned, for instance, to purchase a $650,000 “triple-height suspended sculpture” for its embassy in Brasília. It had designs on a $55,000 “wall installation” in Malawi. A “textile work” that costs $105,000 and a $94,000 “suspended sculpture that would span two levels” were on the books for Mauritius. And $550,000 was set aside for “three ceiling suspended sculptures” that would hang in the “main atrium space” of the American embassy in Riyadh.

The intended purchases, which total nearly $2 million, were described to me by a U.S. government official with information about the State Department’s spending plans. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, for fear of retribution. I verified the planned acquisitions by reviewing a government document—dated earlier this month, weeks after Donald Trump took office—with itemized descriptions of the artwork."

Trump cut lifesaving foreign aid as State Department planned to buy expensive art for embassies

The intended purchases, which total nearly $2 million, were described by a U.S. government official with information about the State Department’s spending plans.

www.pbs.org

QUESTiON: Did SCOTUS know that part of the above $2 billion was to be used to buy sculptures and not to fee the hungry?

 

[martybegan]

Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment​

Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the court’s three liberals in backing a federal judge’s order that requires the administration to begin repaying global health groups nearly $2 billion for completed work.

Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment

A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a request by the Trump administration to lift an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had directed the State […]

www.scotusblog.com

Trump cut lifesaving foreign aid as State Department planned to buy expensive art for embassies

Now part of the $2 billion that SCOTUS said could not be halted from being paid included...

"But at least initially, the budget for expensive artwork to hang in U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide remained robust.
The State Department planned, for instance, to purchase a $650,000 “triple-height suspended sculpture” for its embassy in Brasília. It had designs on a $55,000 “wall installation” in Malawi. A “textile work” that costs $105,000 and a $94,000 “suspended sculpture that would span two levels” were on the books for Mauritius. And $550,000 was set aside for “three ceiling suspended sculptures” that would hang in the “main atrium space” of the American embassy in Riyadh.

The intended purchases, which total nearly $2 million, were described to me by a U.S. government official with information about the State Department’s spending plans. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, for fear of retribution. I verified the planned acquisitions by reviewing a government document—dated earlier this month, weeks after Donald Trump took office—with itemized descriptions of the artwork."

Trump cut lifesaving foreign aid as State Department planned to buy expensive art for embassies

The intended purchases, which total nearly $2 million, were described by a U.S. government official with information about the State Department’s spending plans.

www.pbs.org

QUESTiON: Did SCOTUS know that part of the above $2 billion was to be used to buy sculptures and not to fee the hungry?

Nope, all they said was the district judge has to tell the admin what to pay, and give them time to do it.

 

[Manonthestreet]

PErhaps Roberts finances need some scrutiny

 

[Auld Phart]

Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment​

Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the court’s three liberals in backing a federal judge’s order that requires the administration to begin repaying global health groups nearly $2 billion for completed work.

Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment

A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a request by the Trump administration to lift an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had directed the State […]

www.scotusblog.com

Trump cut lifesaving foreign aid as State Department planned to buy expensive art for embassies

Now part of the $2 billion that SCOTUS said could not be halted from being paid included...

"But at least initially, the budget for expensive artwork to hang in U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide remained robust.
The State Department planned, for instance, to purchase a $650,000 “triple-height suspended sculpture” for its embassy in Brasília. It had designs on a $55,000 “wall installation” in Malawi. A “textile work” that costs $105,000 and a $94,000 “suspended sculpture that would span two levels” were on the books for Mauritius. And $550,000 was set aside for “three ceiling suspended sculptures” that would hang in the “main atrium space” of the American embassy in Riyadh.

The intended purchases, which total nearly $2 million, were described to me by a U.S. government official with information about the State Department’s spending plans. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, for fear of retribution. I verified the planned acquisitions by reviewing a government document—dated earlier this month, weeks after Donald Trump took office—with itemized descriptions of the artwork."

Trump cut lifesaving foreign aid as State Department planned to buy expensive art for embassies

The intended purchases, which total nearly $2 million, were described by a U.S. government official with information about the State Department’s spending plans.

www.pbs.org

QUESTiON: Did SCOTUS know that part of the above $2 billion was to be used to buy sculptures and not to fee the hungry?

Not their job to decide what the money is being spent on, their job is to decide the legality of stopping the payments.

I don't like it either, but facts is facts.

 

[Samofvt]

Interesting. But, if contracts have been signed and work done, I agree that the contracts must be honored.

No more contracts, though, and USAID needs to be shut down. Maybe their old buildings can be used as temporary office space for DOGE, now and in the future if something like them is needed again?

 

[martybegan]

Not their job to decide what the money is being spent on, their job is to decide the legality of stopping the payments.

I don't like it either, but facts is facts.

Looks like the District Judge is only going to partially follow the SC order.

Here We Go (Again): Judge Orders Trump to Pay USAID Orgs -- By Monday

 

[martybegan]

Interesting. But, if contracts have been signed and work done, I agree that the contracts must be honored.

No more contracts, though, and USAID needs to be shut down. Maybe their old buildings can be used as temporary office space for DOGE, now and in the future if something like them is needed again?

Only if all the rules were followed for requesting payments, and so far we have seen some accounting practices were not being properly followed.

 

[Blaster]

SCOTUS has 4 Conservatives, 3 Liberals and 2 Rino justices.

 

[Rawley]

Interesting. But, if contracts have been signed and work done, I agree that the contracts must be honored.

No more contracts, though, and USAID needs to be shut down. Maybe their old buildings can be used as temporary office space for DOGE, now and in the future if something like them is needed again?

what if the contracts are fraudulent?

 

[ReinyDays]

Only if all the rules were followed for requesting payments, and so far we have seen some accounting practices were not being properly followed.

Accounting? ... not the Federal Government ... why we elected a businessman to office who understands the importance of good accounting ...

Accounting? ... what a laugh ... there is no accounting in Washington DC ... just sell the art work, if that's the problem ... $2 billion is chump change if we're overspending $2 trillion per year ... cutting defense, schools and police to pay for tax breaks for the Rich ... no accounting ...

 

[Samofvt]

Only if all the rules were followed for requesting payments, and so far we have seen some accounting practices were not being properly followed.

In that case, there is all the more reason to let the payments go through: if they accept fraudulent money, a crime has been committed, and we can go after everyone involved. If the payment doesn't go through, it would be just 'attempted' fraud, not worth the effort to prosecute.

 

[justoffal]

Not their job to decide what the money is being spent on, their job is to decide the legality of stopping the payments.

I don't like it either, but facts is facts.

I'm not too put off by it.... The supreme Court has to be careful not to look like a rubber stamp. From what I understand services were already delivered and the money was owed.
This isn't like a future expense or a future trend.
Hang in there The supreme Court comes down in favor of Trump seven out of 10 times You can't expect 10 out of 10.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm not too put off by it.... The supreme Court has to be careful not to look like a rubber stamp. From what I understand services were already delivered and the money was owed.
This isn't like a future expense or a future trend.
Hang in there The supreme Court comes down in favor of Trump seven out of 10 times You can't expect 10 out of 10.

The Trump Administration shouldn't be issuing these resolutions if they violate written law ... somebody IN the Administration needs to be checking this first ... no reason for the courts to have to weigh in ...

Remember ... Congress writes into the Law that the President has great discretion spending much of this money, so in most cases the courts will allow these cuts ... that's what the Law says, then that's what the courts are enforcing ... simple ...

 

[justoffal]

The Trump Administration shouldn't be issuing these resolutions if they violate written law ... somebody IN the Administration needs to be checking this first ... no reason for the courts to have to weigh in ...

Remember ... Congress writes into the Law that the President has great discretion spending much of this money, so in most cases the courts will allow these cuts ... that's what the Law says, then that's what the courts are enforcing ... simple ...

Yeah aside from the law and aside from all the technical aspects and mechanics of government workings every paycheck American understands the concept of watching what you spend and making sure you're not getting ripped off. If the left chooses to die on that hill they will absolutely die there.

 

[jwoodie]

Interesting. But, if contracts have been signed and work done, I agree that the contracts must be honored.

I agree, but most government contracts pay before work is done. If the contract was approved by the Executive Branch, it can be canceled by the Executive Branch. SCOTUS may be waiting for the judge to order payment for a particularly undeserving contract or where fraud is suspected before stepping in and halting the order.

 

[healthmyths]

Not their job to decide what the money is being spent on, their job is to decide the legality of stopping the payments.

I don't like it either, but facts is facts.

And so according to SCOTUS a bill presented to the USA has to be paid, even though there was misappropriation of expenditures by USAID...i.e. funds used to decorate with sculptures.

 

[Independent thinker]

Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment​

Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the court’s three liberals in backing a federal judge’s order that requires the administration to begin repaying global health groups nearly $2 billion for completed work.

Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment

A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a request by the Trump administration to lift an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had directed the State […]

www.scotusblog.com

Trump cut lifesaving foreign aid as State Department planned to buy expensive art for embassies

Now part of the $2 billion that SCOTUS said could not be halted from being paid included...

"But at least initially, the budget for expensive artwork to hang in U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide remained robust.
The State Department planned, for instance, to purchase a $650,000 “triple-height suspended sculpture” for its embassy in Brasília. It had designs on a $55,000 “wall installation” in Malawi. A “textile work” that costs $105,000 and a $94,000 “suspended sculpture that would span two levels” were on the books for Mauritius. And $550,000 was set aside for “three ceiling suspended sculptures” that would hang in the “main atrium space” of the American embassy in Riyadh.

The intended purchases, which total nearly $2 million, were described to me by a U.S. government official with information about the State Department’s spending plans. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, for fear of retribution. I verified the planned acquisitions by reviewing a government document—dated earlier this month, weeks after Donald Trump took office—with itemized descriptions of the artwork."

Trump cut lifesaving foreign aid as State Department planned to buy expensive art for embassies

The intended purchases, which total nearly $2 million, were described by a U.S. government official with information about the State Department’s spending plans.

www.pbs.org

QUESTiON: Did SCOTUS know that part of the above $2 billion was to be used to buy sculptures and not to fee the hungry?

Actually, they made a perfectly legal decision in that they reinstated money that was already authorized by Congress for services already rendered by contractors, and that the contractors legally had the right to be paid for those services already rendered.

But, and this is a big but, the Court did not rule that any monies authorized by Congress had to be paid out to any contractor who had NOT yet provided the services. And, the decision has nothing to do with future monies. Democrats are stretching this if they call the Court's decision a win for the left.

 

[Edgetho]

The Judicial Branch needs to be put in its place. Soon.

More at the link

Corrupt Judge Who Bought His Judgeship By Shoveling Millions to Biden and the Democrat Party Refuses to Recuse Himself Despite Having a Financial Interest in Keeping the Phony Grant Grift Going​

—Ace​

So many surprises and plot twists that I'm having trouble keeping up.

Judge's Failure To Recuse Himself From Trump Spending Freeze Case Shows How Court Is Rigged

A nonprofit board member himself, Judge McConnell has a motive to keep federal funding flowing to nonprofits.

Judge John McConnell, chief judge of the federal district court of Rhode Island, has such a deep conflict of interest in one of the Trump Administration's spending freeze cases that it is obvious he should have recused himself. His continued involvement in the case is another sign that the court system is rigged, leaving the majority of U.S. citizens who voted for President Donald Trump's policies watching lawfare instead of seeing progress.

 

[BluesLegend]

The Judicial Branch needs to be put in its place. Soon.

More at the link

Corrupt Judge Who Bought His Judgeship By Shoveling Millions to Biden and the Democrat Party Refuses to Recuse Himself Despite Having a Financial Interest in Keeping the Phony Grant Grift Going​

—Ace​

So many surprises and plot twists that I'm having trouble keeping up.

What a surprise (sarcasm)

 

[22lcidw]

SCOTUS has 4 Conservatives, 3 Liberals and 2 Rino justices.

Republicans have had opportunity after opportunity to put conservative judges in over many years and decades. Progressive have no problem putting theirs in. If Trump has a chance to replace any judges, he needs to make sure the RINOS who push the judges are not involved. Progs even forced out Judge Breyer due to his age to get a younger Prog in there with Joe. With all of the extreme activist judges this is dicey.