Supreme Court Rules 5-4 to Maybe Allow a Single Judge to Tell the President How He Must Execute His Office

Once again Amy Coney Barrett joins liberal Chief Justice Roberts.

Overseas AIDS grifter organizations sued to have Trump turn back on the money spigot. A DC judge decided that he was now Acting President, and ordered Trump to do so. Roberts issued a stay of that order, signalling that maybe the Justices would exercise some authority over the leftwing #Resistance judges attempting to control the presidency through judicial fiat.

But now the fraudster Amy Coney Barrett joins Roberts in once again joining with the three hardcore liberals to overturn that stay and order Trump to disburse the money.

But it's not quite that bad -- yet. While Barrett did join Roberts and the hard-left liberals, the order removing the stay did not empower the judge to execute his original order. Rather, it seeks clarification from the judge to state specifically which monies he believes Trump must spend.

He's claiming that the AIDS grifters already performed the work that "earns" them the $2 billion. The Supreme Court seems to be saying that if some work was performed, that must be compensated, but they want to know how much of the $2 billion would go to work already performed. It's not the full $2 billion, is it?

So the case goes back to the lawless lower court judge, where he'll play President again and decide how much of the $2 billion Trump must spend.

This does give the Supreme Court another crack at reversing his order, if he can't establish that services were already rendered or once again presumes Trump to spend the full $2 billion.

I think that's the situation.

While the ruling may be more limited than people at first thought, Justice Alito is "stunned" that the Court would entertain this "power grab" by a lowly district court judge.

Via Disney's ABC Propaganda and Infotainment Division:

A sharply divided Supreme Court on Wednesday narrowly ruled that the Trump administration must comply with a district court order and pay out nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance funds to nonprofit aid groups for work already completed on the government's behalf. The court ruled 5-4 with Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barret siding with the liberal justices. The court did not elaborate on the decision but said the district court judge should "clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines."

...

Justice Samuel Alito said in his dissent that he was "stunned" by the majority's decison.

"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) billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic "No," but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise," he wrote.

I don't know. I think it's too early to hang ourselves yet, but we'll have to see. Maybe we should start putting up that noose.

posted by Ace at 03:57 PM

| Access Comments