The Supreme Court discussion thread
So it now seems absolutely certain that the court will end up hearing an abortion related case sometime in the future. How should they adjudicate these new laws?
FWIW, I've always thought that the decision in Roe is worth reading, because it makes an interesting legal and philosophical argument in support of the compromise the justices reached, attempting to balance the the constitutional "right to privacy" which entails women's right to self-determination and the "legitimate state interest" in regulating abortion, e.g.
The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus.... As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.
This balancing of interests leads them to make the viability of the fetus an inflection point with regard to when the state may legitimately assert an interest in requiring that the life of the fetus be protected.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Does the compromise outlined in Roe still make sense?
I also think there's probably room for a discussion about the role of the courts more generally, here, and particularly the way they are becoming politicized simply because the appointment process is so heavily politicized, i.e. the refusal to hold a vote on Merrick Garland, the Kavanaugh hearings, etc. But then one of the criticisms of Roe itself is that the compromise they reached might have been more appropriately reached via a legislative process, rather than by the courts. I've always thought that would have been optimal, but then I would not have traded the "optimal" legislative process for abortion being illegal the last 50 years either. So I am a supporter of Roe.
Forcing a payment BEFORE litigation goes through to determine if the payment is actually owed isn't "upholding semblance of law and order".
It's unclear if the payment is actually owed. It's unclear if the judge even has jurisdiction on the matter. There are sovereign immunity issues among others.
It's absurd to claim it's even vaguely proper to force the payment to go through before adjudicating the complexities of the situation
Most bills are paid without adjudication. It's mostly Trump bills which are not, a big part of how he became so wealthy.
Yes, civil court contract law recourse like anyone else having the same issue with a private contract party.
Keep in mind the "satisfactory manner" is your opinion, do you agree you have to prove it in court before seeing any money?
Let me ask you the opposite question: is the american gvmnt unlike any other party in a contract forced by law to first pay then litigate when it thinks the payment stemming from a contract actually isn't due for whatever reason?
Of course you shouldn't have to do that! Do you think that most people owed money have to take the buyer to court to get the money??
This is only happening because Donald Trump has a history of deliberately not paying his bills so thinks that's also a normal way to run a government. Any other president would have just exerted more control over future contracts, not refuse to pay bills for services contracted by the previous administration.
BECAUSE SHES A DEI HIRE WHO DIDN'T KISS THE RING, DOESN'T SHE KNOW WHO SHE WORKS FOR??? WHAT A DESPICABLE TRAITOROUS BITCH
is kind of what you guys sound like right now
definitely rational and normal reaction to a judge upholding semblance of law and order
Just a short 30 minutes after my prophetic post
Its all so predictable
Y'all might as well be the same person as you both get your marching orders from the same place
Like I said, its incredibly telling that Mschu had already singled out the lady you identified as a traitor. Now lets see how many people on twitter are calling for her head
I don't get "marching orders" from anyone.
there is no "head" to get, those are life appointments and everyone knows that.
what will happen though will be to push very clearly about a very specific idea: no compromise anymore on judicial picks.
so, try to follow the logic no matter how much you despise it: this decision and others in the recent past tell the right , trump shouldn't pick judges just because they are kinda right-wing and relatively well respected and capable.
if the right wants a chance to change society and to get back to pre-monoparty state violence, it needs to pick ultra extremist judges.
so the idea will be pick people from tier 3 law schools but who have a history of being adamantly extremist in their judicial philosophy and give up on any notion of caring about anything else.
I’m not asking what you would do. I’m asking how you would feel and whether you think it’s fair to make you sue to get your money.
Keep in mind that the Trump gov has NEVER argued that the work wasn’t done or wasn’t done satisfactorily. They are saying that the executive has the unilateral decision to simply not pay. There’s nothing to “sort out” afterwards, there is no argument to not pay beyond “you can’t make us”.
Id note that in your scenario, it’s basically like you went to court and the o
you keep arguing as if it was obvious this was money that had already been spent by the various agencies, in fulfillment of some obligation.
I don't know who told you that, who invented that, but we are talking money for future activities.
i don't know how you can even vaguely believe for a second that these agencies can pay 2 billions in costs UPFRONT then wait for the wire by the American government.
we are talking money congress appropriated and which hadn't been disbursed yet, so hadnt been spent yet, that the executive thinks it can impound (IE not spend even if congress said to do so).
that's what they say the executive can unilaterally do. not renege on already formed obligations related to already done work.
I can't wait to see what you post when you learn that SCOTUS justices can be impeached.
if the right wants a chance to change society and to get back to pre-monoparty state violence, it needs to pick ultra extremist judges.
This is pretty rich coming from the guy who was complaining about "activist" judges as recently as a few weeks ago.
so the idea will be pick people from tier 3 law schools but who have a history of being adamantly extremist in their judicial philosophy and give up on any notion of caring about anything else.
Why do these new extremists have to come from bad law schools?
you keep arguing as if it was obvious this was money that had already been spent by the various agencies, in fulfillment of some obligation.
I don't know who told you that, who invented that, but we are talking money for future activities.
i don't know how you can even vaguely believe for a second that these agencies can pay 2 billions in costs UPFRONT then wait for the wire by the American government.
we are talking money congress appropriated and which hadn't been disbursed yet, so hadnt been spe
If you read the opinion, it’s exactly the issue the majority decided the case on: the work that was already completed must be paid for by the govt. And, it’s also the reason for the remand.
All judges can be impeached, but it's a waste of time to even try as you can't ever even vaguely hope to get the senate to convict when that helps trump re-appoint someone ever more rightwing.
Musk attempt to impeach district level judges (he retwitter house members draftint impeachment procedures and whatnot) it's a complete troll show with no utility.
you keep arguing as if it was obvious this was money that had already been spent by the various agencies, in fulfillment of some obligation.
The majority opinion plainly states that the February 25 order that the government appealed was limited to payments "owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court's temporary restraining order."
Alito in his dissent conceded that the respondents "raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work." He just thought the relief that the District Court ordered was too broad.
I don't know whether you are willfully mischaracterizing the opinion or simply being obtuse, but it has to be one or the other.
All judges can be impeached, but it's a waste of time to even try as you can't ever even vaguely hope to get the senate to convict when that helps trump re-appoint someone ever more rightwing.
Musk attempt to impeach district level judges (he retwitter house members draftint impeachment procedures and whatnot) it's a complete troll show with no utility.
Yes. Historically, it has been a waste of time when there are no valid grounds for impeachment, which is usually the case. But don't lose hope. If the Republicans ever get 2/3 of the seats in the Senate, I'm sure that they won't require valid grounds for conviction.
The majority opinion plainly states that the February 25 order that the government appealed was limited to payments "owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court's temporary restraining order."
Alito in his dissent conceded that the respondents "raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work." He just thought the relief that the District Court ordered was too broad.
I don't know whether you are willfully mischaracterizing the opinion or simply being obtuse
The *effect* of the decision is that the gvmnt will be forced to wire the 2bln, or at least this is what i understand out of this whole mess. If i am wrong with that then ok, i am mischaracterizing the opinion.
If i am right and at the end the gvmnt is forced to send those 2 billions (which , to be clear, it's impossible they were about work already done, because it's impossible to entertain the idea that these people in africa and elsewhere can upfront 2 billions in costs while waiting for the gvmnt to then reimburse them), then you can see why i am tilted when it's mentioned it's about "payment for work already done".
Yes. It's a waste of time when there are no valid grounds for impeachment, which is usually the case.
In the current situation it's a waste of time even with valid grounds, because democrats would never accept to give a judicial pick to trump for free basically (and when reversed, republicans wouldn't either).
So unless it's about impeaching some ultra-rightwing judge, democrats will never vote to impeach
The *effect* of the decision is that the gvmnt will be forced to wire the 2bln, or at least this is what i understand out of this whole mess. If i am wrong with that then ok, i am mischaracterizing the opinion.
If i am right and at the end the gvmnt is forced to send those 2 billions (which , to be clear, it's impossible they were about work already done, because it's impossible to entertain the idea that these people in africa and elsewhere can upfront 2 billions in costs while waiting for the g
Your inability to understand that DOGE cancelling contracts based on keyword searches without regard to the status of the performance of those contracts or meeting payment benchmarks is certainly a “you” problem. You couldn’t understand it in the context of medical treatment either.
Regardless, the SCOTUS decision is crystal clear that the work was already performed.
The *effect* of the decision is that the gvmnt will be forced to wire the 2bln, or at least this is what i understand out of this whole mess. If i am wrong with that then ok, i am mischaracterizing the opinion.
If i am right and at the end the gvmnt is forced to send those 2 billions (which , to be clear, it's impossible they were about work already done, because it's impossible to entertain the idea that these people in africa and elsewhere can upfront 2 billions in costs while waiting for the g
Dude.
Have you read any of the opinions in this?
Or even just the Trump gov briefs?
There is no argument about performing the work at all because the gov/DOGE DIDNT LOOK AT THAT AT ALL. They just canceled everything so they have NO ARGUMENT or information whatsoever about whether the work was done. They just didn’t pay.
It is impossible for the gov to make the argument that the money is not owed because they did not do individualized analysis of the contracts. They have zero information about that.
I also want to point out that even you apparently think that’s so insane as to be “impossible”
Dude.
Have you read any of the opinions in this?
Or even just the Trump gov briefs?
There is no argument about performing the work at all because the gov/DOGE DIDNT LOOK AT THAT AT ALL. They just canceled everything so they have NO ARGUMENT or information whatsoever about whether the work was done. They just didn’t pay.
I quoted the exact language from the opinion and the dissent. I guess that he thinks all nine justices had their facts wrong. It's absurd.
Dude.
Have you read any of the opinions in this?
Or even just the Trump gov briefs?
There is no argument about performing the work at all because the gov/DOGE DIDNT LOOK AT THAT AT ALL. They just canceled everything so they have NO ARGUMENT or information whatsoever about whether the work was done. They just didn’t pay.
It is impossible for the gov to make the argument that the money is not owed because they did not do individualized analysis of the contracts. They have zero information about that
I read the "opinion" (the unsigned paragraph) of the majority, and the actual opinion of the minority yes.
The ruling isn't about "everything"
Your inability to understand that DOGE cancelling contracts based on keyword searches without regard to the status of the performance of those contracts or meeting payment benchmarks is certainly a “you” problem. You couldn’t understand it in the context of medical treatment either.
Regardless, the SCOTUS decision is crystal clear that the work was already performed.
The USAID freeze isn't very DOGE-related, not sure why you are bringing up DOGE. It was a blanket freeze on everything USAID-related, with later a few things re-instated.
The SCOTUS decision didn't address whether that specific payment (the 2 bln one addressed by the minority opinion) or any other was about work already performed.
The decision was "yes the district judge can order you to pay for work already performed" (fairly reasonable i suppose) , and it can do it with TROs (which is the psychotic part). Which basically means it can order you to pay AS IF it was work already performed BEFORE any court adjudicates whether it's ACTUALLY work already performed.
That's my contention.
The USAID freeze isn't very DOGE-related, not sure why you are bringing up DOGE. It was a blanket freeze on everything USAID-related, with later a few things re-instated.
The SCOTUS decision didn't address whether that specific payment (the 2 bln one addressed by the minority opinion) or any other was about work already performed.
The decision was "yes the district judge can order you to pay for work already performed" (fairly reasonable i suppose) , and it can do it with TROs (which is the psych
How is it not DOGE related? Elon literally gave a press conference talking about what they chopped and how they “turned Ebola back on”. Who put in place this “blanket freeze”. (Let’s put aside for the second that the gov has denied it was a blanket freeze and claimed that every single decision was reviewed and approved by Rubio).
I can’t believe I’m wasting more time on this but the reason none of the decisions talk about whether the work was done was because the gov did not ever contest it.
Think about this - if you are right in your understanding of the situation then why is no one else on your side making that argument?
How is it not DOGE related? Elon literally gave a press conference talking about what they chopped and how they “turned Ebola back on”. Who put in place this “blanket freeze”. (Let’s put aside for the second that the gov has denied it was a blanket freeze and claimed that every single decision was reviewed and approved by Rubio).
I can’t believe I’m wasting more time on this but the reason none of the decisions talk about whether the work was done was because the gov did not ever contest it.
Th
Because DOGE is about semi-randomly shutting down this or that contract/program in otherwise still functioning departments, while for USAID specifically they froze everything, no DOGE "combing" through the contracts or whatever.
USAID blanket freeze was from this day-1 EO
Because DOGE is about semi-randomly shutting down this or that contract/program in otherwise still functioning departments, while for USAID specifically they froze everything, no DOGE "combing" through the contracts or whatever.
USAID blanket freeze was from this day-1 EO
EOs are not laws man. And they don’t have any effect by themselves. They all say - to the extent permissible by law or whatever in there. Someone has to DO it.
In this case, everything points to it being another random DOGE shutdown because of the manner in which it was done, the inability of anyone in the government to give a straight answer or provide any documentation as to who made the decisions, and (I’d say this one is pretty convincing) the fact that Elon went on TV and literally said he did it.
The USAID freeze isn't very DOGE-related, not sure why you are bringing up DOGE. It was a blanket freeze on everything USAID-related, with later a few things re-instated.
The SCOTUS decision didn't address whether that specific payment (the 2 bln one addressed by the minority opinion) or any other was about work already performed.
The decision was "yes the district judge can order you to pay for work already performed" (fairly reasonable i suppose) , and it can do it with TROs (which is the psych
Let's be clear. What you wrote above is your contention NOW. Your contention as recently as ninety minutes ago, and despite the plain language of the SCOTUS opinion, was that it was "inconceivable" that the decision related to work that had already been done.
In any case, here are the actual facts (if you care):
1) The subject of the SCOTUS appeal was Judge Amir Ali's February 25 order.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/supre...
2) Judge Ali's February 25 order was expressly limited to amounts that had been invoiced or that were the subject of LOC drawdown requests as of the date of the TRO.
Judge Ali ordered the agencies to pay all invoices and “letter of credit drawdown requests,” on all contracts for work completed before his Feb. 13 order, including requests for reimbursement on grants and assistance agreements.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/25/us/po...
3) The federal government didn't pause foreign assistance funding because of concerns about whether invoiced work had actually been done. The stated reason was to ensure that the programs were "efficient and consistent with Trump's 'America First' agenda."
https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-s...
4) You seem to be imagining that the money in question would flow mainly to "people in Africa" who couldn't possibly have fronted significant costs. That is a fantasy. Most of the work in question was done by large non-profits and international development companies. For example, DAI Global submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury in which is stated that it had not been paid for $115 million in outstanding invoices. DAI Global is a large organization.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcgl...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAI_Global
5) One of the government's main arguments to the SCOTUS was that Judge Ali's February 25 order did not allow enough time for the government to comply in an orderly fashion. The majority specifically addressed this point when it directed the district court to clarify exactly what the federal government had to do, "with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance deadlines."
This is why I brought up DOGE but the issue is tangential to my point:
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by billionaire Elon Musk and a team of his followers, entered the offices of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shuttering much of the agency and its functions. They’ve sent home a majority of the Washington D.C.-based staff on administrative leave, ordered that staff located abroad travel back to the United States, and altogether roughly 10,000 staffers from around the globe are to be placed on leave. There are serious questions about the legality of this maneuver, given that the agency was created by Congress.
Musk has recently said that President Trump has agreed to shut down USAID, and called the agency a “criminal organization” and that it was “time for it to die,” and that he “spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.” On February 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio unveiled plans to restructure and potentially abolish USAID, and noted that “In consultation with Congress, USAID may move, reorganize, and integrate certain missions, bureaus, and offices into the Department of State, and the remainder of the Agency may be abolished consistent with applicable law.”
I suspect govt contracts have some sophisticated benchmarks to release funding that you apparently don't believe in or understand with your sophmoric viewpoint. I suspect some contracts were 10%, 20%, 50%, 99% complete when the pause was put into place and various amounts of corresponding money was owed by our govt. No EO negates those payment obligations for past work.
Have you never built a home and dealt with such benchmarks as a baseline for understanding this?
The only thing I’ll add to Roccoco’s summary is that the appeal and SCOTUS decision are only of the TRO ordering the Gov to pay out in a short timeframe.
There was a whole hearing and testimony on whether or not the Gov had to pay at all/whether the money was owed. The gov lost that because a “blanket freeze”, as Luciom puts it, is actually not a legally permissible reason to stop payment. You have to make individual decisions, and it was incredibly clear from the initial litigation that the gov did not even try to do that.
So there was an initial order in mid Feb that says “Gov you have to pay”. Then the plaintiffs complained that they were not getting paid still, which led to the Feb 25 TRO.
So the Gov had a chance to show they didn’t have to pay for a legit reason, lost, and never appealed that! Some of the commentary I’ve read on this speculates that this was a tactical decision because they had no hope of winning on whether the money was owed, so instead they just didn’t pay and appealed the courts authority to make them pay in the manner specified in the order.
Whatever the reason - as it stands now, there is no dispute at all that the money is owed. Whether you want to describe that as money for services already provided or just money that has been adjudicated as being a legit debt, the result is the same.
