Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In the first significant Supreme Court decision on Trump’s spending freeze stuff, Roberts and ACB joined the liberals to lift the stay of a district court order compelling that $2 billion in USAID payments be made:
Good sign that there are five votes to push back against the worst Trump excesses.
In the first significant Supreme Court decision on Trump’s spending freeze stuff, Roberts and ACB joined the liberals to lift the stay of a district court order compelling that $2 billion in USAID payments be made:
Good sign that there are five votes to push back against the worst Trump excesses.
Their dissent is more about procedural stuff - they dissented based on the supposed lack of jurisdiction for the district court based on sovereign immunity. So they avoided giving their substantive thoughts on the issue. I have no doubt Alito and Thomas will rule in that way if they get the chance. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch definitely hate the administrative state and would be happy to see it crumble but not as clear whether they are willing to support Trump going full king-mode.So four Supreme Court Justices who are supposed originalists believe that Congress doesn't have the power of the purse.
Sovereign immunity is not a procedural matter. It's a substantive doctrine (tragicomically ridiculous one) that would end this case and all others like it.Their dissent is more about procedural stuff - they dissented based on the supposed lack of jurisdiction for the district court based on sovereign immunity. So they avoided giving their substantive thoughts on the issue. I have no doubt Alito and Thomas will rule in that way if they get the chance. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch definitely hate the administrative state and would be happy to see it crumble but not as clear whether they are willing to support Trump going full king-mode.
The "great troika" now replaces the Bush(Frum ) "Axis of Evil"...America the Evil Mastermind? Not So Fast, Russians Are Told.
As President Trump begins to side with Russia, the Kremlin propaganda machine has changed its tune.
GIFT LINK—> America the Evil Mastermind? Not So Fast, Russians Are Told.
“…In an interview on Russian state television on Sunday, Mr. Lavrov listed the ills that Europe — not America — had brought upon the world. The United States, in his telling, had gone from evil mastermind to innocent bystander.
“Colonization, wars, crusaders, the Crimean War, Napoleon, World War I, Hitler,” Mr. Lavrov said. “If we look at history in retrospect, the Americans did not play any instigating, let alone incendiary, role.”
As President Trump turns decades of U.S. foreign policy upside down, another dizzying swing is taking place in Russia, both in the Kremlin and on state-controlled television: The United States, the new message goes, is not that bad after all.
Almost overnight, it’s Europe — not the United States — that has become the source of instability in the Russian narrative.
On his marquee weekly show on the Rossiya-1 channel Sunday night, the anchor Dmitri Kiselyov described the “party of war” in Europe as outmatched by the “great troika” of the United States, Russia and China that will form “the new structure of the world.” …”
I understand what you mean. Just trying to convey that, at least on its face, the case did not present the issue of what the justices believe about who has the "power of the purse." The dissent argued that the matter should have been before the Court of Federal claims on damages, not a district court for a TRO; it didn't say that the President had the right to do what he was doing. But as I said, I have no doubt that Alito and Thomas would in fact rule that the president does have such power. Likely Kavanaugh as well given his preference for the "unitary executive" theory. Gorsuch loathes the administrative state but not sure he wants Congress entirely marginalized.Sovereign immunity is not a procedural matter. It's a substantive doctrine (tragicomically ridiculous one) that would end this case and all others like it.
Maybe not directly, but that's still an issue here. To say that the case should have been for damages through the claims process is to say that the judiciary has no power to restrain lawless power grabs by means of injunctions. In other words, the Alito position is that it doesn't matter what the judiciary thinks about the lawfulness of the president taking the power of the purse, which is of course practically indistinguishable from saying the president has the right to do so.the case did not present the issue of what the justices believe about who has the "power of the purse."