- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Johnathan Turley offers clarity on the SCOTUS 5-4 decision forcing Trump to spend $2 B.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 3:16 pm to JellyRoll
Posted on 3/6/25 at 3:16 pm to JellyRoll
quote:
but the dissent is correct in not giving the lower court judges the power to dictate how the executive branch pays bills.
Agree with that
1
Posted on 3/6/25 at 3:29 pm to GumboPot
Not fully versed on this (legal system gives me a headache in addition to the zone being flooded by douches) but wasn't this decision primarily based on the fact these are payouts for work already performed?
If that's true, its about as momentous as a ruling from Whopner's court.
I neither understand the celebrating OR the hand wringing. No matter how absurd, if they fulfilled the contract they are due payment (unless it is criminally fraudulent).
It's more contract law that constitutionality.
If that's true, its about as momentous as a ruling from Whopner's court.
I neither understand the celebrating OR the hand wringing. No matter how absurd, if they fulfilled the contract they are due payment (unless it is criminally fraudulent).
It's more contract law that constitutionality.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 3:42 pm to Indefatigable
But the TRO had already expired anyway, so it was all pretty moot. Now, if the judge grants a preliminary injunction, things may be different. Mark W. Smith at 4 Boxes Diner on YouTube provided more detail.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:10 pm to Rambler
quote:
Now, if the judge grants a preliminary injunction, things may be different
Then it goes through the circuit.
I don’t like the idea of SCOTUS intruding into district court injunctions, but I also don’t like district court authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
Just like literally ever other issue facing US politics, Congress is to blame. They have near total authority on the jurisdiction of federal courts. They could fix this easily.
This post was edited on 3/6/25 at 6:11 pm
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:12 pm to I20goon
quote:
Not fully versed on this (legal system gives me a headache in addition to the zone being flooded by douches) but wasn't this decision primarily based on the fact these are payouts for work already performed? If that's true, its about as momentous as a ruling from Whopner's court. I neither understand the celebrating OR the hand wringing. No matter how absurd, if they fulfilled the contract they are due payment (unless it is criminally fraudulent). It's more contract law that constitutionality.
You’re pretty much spot on. But SCOTUS cases are unfortunately judged by the masses on the political implications of their decisions—-not the actual issue before the court.
The two are never the same
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:24 pm to MintBerry Crunch
Gorsuch > Kavbaw > Barrett
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News