Supreme Court smacks Trump down on foreign aid.

[martybegan]

He can't do that any more than Trump can. It's been passed, it's going out.




Could be but I would like for the news to be more honest over that. That's simply bribe money for something or another.

he has to be specific, that's what the ruling directed him to do.

 

[pknopp]

They did no such thing.

They told the District Court to clarify what has to be paid out under the TRO, and give a reasonable timeline for it.

Spin it all you want but they did no such thing. They ruled the court had to come up with a reasonable time frame to release the money, not what money needs released.

 

[pknopp]

he has to be specific, that's what the ruling directed him to do.

"Release the money" is specific.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I do like that the court ruled that Trump isn't a government unto himself.

.




Link?




.

 

[martybegan]

Spin it all you want but they did no such thing. They ruled the court had to come up with a reasonable time frame to release the money, not what money needs released.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf

Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensurecompliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.

The actual words of the opinion. From the Court itself. Read the ******* highlighted part.

 

[martybegan]

"Release the money" is specific.

Read the link I just gave. Are you really this ******* stupid?

 

[martybegan]

"Release the money" is specific.

The SC opinion doesn't say release the money.

It says the district court has to tell the admin which disbursements meet the requirements under a TRO, which needs irreparable harm to occur if the funds aren't paid out.

 

[theHawk]

“The unsigned order does not actually require the Trump administration to immediately make up to $2 billion in foreign aid payments; it merely clears the way for the district court to compel those payments, presumably if it is more specific about the contracts that have to be honored,” Vladeck said.

Which then will be appealed back to SCOTUS, for the final smackdown against the grifters ripping of the US and trying to force the President to waste money.

 

[martybegan]

Which then will be appealed back to SCOTUS, for the final smackdown against the grifters ripping of the US and trying to force the President to waste money.

I would actually pay out whatever this Biden Drone says to under the TRO, as long as he is specific to what is to be paid and to who.
'
Gives the Trump admin a built in "look what this moron made you pay for" line.

 

[Marener]

So the MAGAs are here saying SCOTUS is letting Trump continue to defy court orders without actually saying it’s okay to defy court orders.

 

[martybegan]

So the MAGAs are here saying SCOTUS is letting Trump continue to defy court orders without actually saying it’s okay to defy court orders.

Nope, what the SC said is the District court has to be specific on what has to be paid out under the TRO rules, and give the admin time to do it.

Trump hasn't ignored anything in this chain of rulings, appeals, and further rulings.

It's up to the District judge now to follow the SC direction.

 

[okfine]

The majority noted that given a court-ordered deadline to spend the money last week had already passed, the lower courts should “clarify what obligations the government must fulfil to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order.”

Well, that should be easy enough to sandbag.

I bet you call that winning.
Most ignorant do. MAGA

 

[Marener]

Nope, what the SC said is the District court has to be specific on what has to be paid out under the TRO rules, and give the admin time to do it.

Trump hasn't ignored anything in this chain of rulings, appeals, and further rulings.

It's up to the District judge now to follow the SC direction.

SCOTUS tying up the judge with hurdles to jump through and provide further opportunity for Trump’s cronies to slow walk any order.

The likelihood that anything actually gets paid out is pretty low.

 

[martybegan]

SCOTUS tying up the judge with hurdles to jump through and provide further opportunity for Trump’s cronies to slow walk any order.

The likelihood that anything actually gets paid out is pretty low.

Not Hurdles, telling the Judge to do his ******* job.

This is just part of a TRO, not a judgement. The plaintiffs have to show the groups in question would suffer irreparable harm not being paid, and the judge then has to agree to that, direct the admin to pay the specific group claimed, and give the admin reasonable time to do it.

 

[theHawk]

So the MAGAs are here saying SCOTUS is letting Trump continue to defy court orders without actually saying it’s okay to defy court orders.

The court has no authority to force the Executive branch from making executive decisions about spending.

 

[Marener]

The court has no authority to force the Executive branch from making executive decisions about spending.

They’re forcing the executive branch to follow the law. Decisions about spending are made by Congress, dope.

 

[theHawk]

They’re forcing the executive branch to follow the law. Decisions about spending are made by Congress, dope.

Wrong. Congress authorizes spending, it cannot enforce it.

 

[martybegan]

They’re forcing the executive branch to follow the law. Decisions about spending are made by Congress, dope.

And are usually so vague it's up to executive interpretation on what gets spent specifically where.

congress gives X billion dollars to agency Y for their vague purpose, and the executive figures out how to follow congresses intent.

Which is the biggest problem of the system, congress not being specific enough on spending.

The SC also forced the judge to be specific on what has to be paid out under the TRO while the case is pending.

 

[Marener]

Wrong. Congress authorizes spending, it cannot enforce it.

If the law says the money must be spent, it must be spent. Otherwise the president would have an insane amount of power that would clearly be in opposition to the founders intent.

 

[Marener]

And are usually so vague it's up to executive interpretation on what gets spent specifically where

SCOTUS says that any vagueness in the law is up to the judiciary to decide on. No more deference.