BREAKING: US Supreme Court has denied Trump‘s emergency bid to cancel nearly $2 billion in USAID spending. pic.twitter.com/ogm8HFS0em
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 5, 2025
Where have you been? He is trying to stop the bleeding first. Biden did a lot of bad **** that needs to be undone. Some people voted for our money to be stolen by democrats.amercer said:
Everything on Trumps agenda could be done legally, which would put it beyond challenge and make it more permanent.
But he'd have to work with Congress, the courts, and follow the administrative rules.
Ellis Wyatt said:Where have you been? He is trying to stop the bleeding first. Biden did a lot of bad **** that needs to be undone. Some people voted for our money to be stolen by democrats.amercer said:
Everything on Trumps agenda could be done legally, which would put it beyond challenge and make it more permanent.
But he'd have to work with Congress, the courts, and follow the administrative rules.
We need to lock the door before we can put in the alarm system.
That is a damages claim not an equitable relief one. As I have said, procedurally these cases are garbage because a federal judge cannot issue a mandatory injunction, call it a TRO (so it won't be immediately appealable) if they were following accepted procedures.Who?mikejones! said:
The one caveat with this specific order is that it has to do with paying for allegedly already completed work.
I can see why the court would be inclined to force that payment
Ianal- i think that's what this specific order is about. I dont believe it has to do with all contracts or payments for future work ornus aid funding
That's the allegation. Is that in fact true? Hell if I know.Who?mikejones! said:
But it has to do with non payment for services performed, correct?
Not with promised payments for work yet to be performed?
amercer said:
Everything on Trumps agenda could be done legally, which would put it beyond challenge and make it more permanent.
But he'd have to work with Congress, the courts, and follow the administrative rules.
Instead it's just chaos that will be held up and reversed.
Pretty much.Who?mikejones! said:
I get it, i think. This ruling sets a bad precedent on the proper handling of these such case and the jurisdiction in which to handle them.
But, it might not effect the long term impacts of doge cuts.
I think that's where it stands
Exclusive | $375B EPA slush fund handled by John Podesta gave billions to charities founded only months earlier https://t.co/uCiJFLyw2z pic.twitter.com/h2iYreWmwV
— New York Post (@nypost) March 5, 2025
Republicans aren't like Democrats.amercer said:Ellis Wyatt said:Where have you been? He is trying to stop the bleeding first. Biden did a lot of bad **** that needs to be undone. Some people voted for our money to be stolen by democrats.amercer said:
Everything on Trumps agenda could be done legally, which would put it beyond challenge and make it more permanent.
But he'd have to work with Congress, the courts, and follow the administrative rules.
We need to lock the door before we can put in the alarm system.
Republicans have both houses of congress. They could have passed a budget weeks ago with any and all cuts Trump/Elon want.
The answer isn't an imperial presidency. One, that will get held up by the courts. Two, it's pretty likely we will have a democratic president again some day…
aggiehawg said:Pretty much.Who?mikejones! said:
I get it, i think. This ruling sets a bad precedent on the proper handling of these such case and the jurisdiction in which to handle them.
But, it might not effect the long term impacts of doge cuts.
I think that's where it stands
It is a shame that the Court declined to clarify this procedural crap resulting in a continuing waste of judicial resources.
Quote:
"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.
Not yet because this case will come back up to them soon.Quote:
So this is not precedent setting?!
Order an audit the likes of we've never seen before to verify that work was completed.Quote:
The one caveat with this specific order is that it has to do with paying for allegedly already completed work.
If the case had been properly brought, as a claim for damages, that would have been done during discovery. They would have to prove up their damages.Stat Monitor Repairman said:Order an audit the likes of we've never seen before to verify that work was completed.Quote:
The one caveat with this specific order is that it has to do with paying for allegedly already completed work.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:Order an audit the likes of we've never seen before to verify that work was completed.Quote:
The one caveat with this specific order is that it has to do with paying for allegedly already completed work.
The solution to this problem is obvious: Congress must quit sending the damn money to USAID!
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 5, 2025
Republicans now control the House and Senate, yet here we are facing a vote on a continuing resolution next week that would fund everything in 2025 as it was funded in 2024. https://t.co/RAMlThyy6x
Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires an injunction bond from the plaintiffs, providing a degree of financial security to those at the receiving end of an injunction, including a TRO
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) March 5, 2025
Were the plaintiffs in the case in which the Supreme Court issued an order… https://t.co/d8vQrFxBbk
JFABNRGR said:
Sounds like DOGE and Data Republican need to focus on the finding corruption ties to the bad judges.
These judges have thrown out the federal rules of procedure. Just awful.RED AG 98 said:
thoughts?Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires an injunction bond from the plaintiffs, providing a degree of financial security to those at the receiving end of an injunction, including a TRO
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) March 5, 2025
Were the plaintiffs in the case in which the Supreme Court issued an order… https://t.co/d8vQrFxBbk
The district Court has to issue a clarification order which is instantly be appealed by DOJ.
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) March 5, 2025
Anyone saying the SCOTUS order means the money must be paid is either lying for clicks or is ignorant, willfully so, of what the order actually says.
I am attacking directly the… pic.twitter.com/ewcdww1FO0
