The Supreme Court discussion thread

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

that's a wild Generalization... do you have any proof?

The government inexplicably didn't even challenge the district court's TRO (which, contrary to your statement, was appealable if it effectively amounted to an injunction). It challenged the Court's subsequent order directing the government to comply with the first order. It isn't even clear me to that the correctness of the TRO was properly before the Court.

Yet you knew exactly who "she" was and had a portrait ready to go

It did and the court of appeal claimed it was not appealable, as the minority opinion explained

Whats unsure about "contract work completed"?

Do you know what a contract is?

Do you know what work already completed means?

I read the ruling this morning, yes.

And nothing prevented the government from arguing to the Supreme Court that the appellate court got it wrong because the TRO was, for all practical purposes, an appealable injunction. Needless to say, the SCOTUS isn't bound by decisions of law by the lower appellate court.

I am not sure why you are certain that it was about work already done exclusively, but even if that was the case that's what, under contract law, you PROVE IN COURT AT TRIAL and when you do you get paid (with damages on top, in some cases, and legal expenses on top as well).

Do you understand that it wasn't proven in court that the amount was legally due? That the judge just ordered for the money to be given well before all the steps had happened to prove it was appropriate to do so?

big difference between reading the ruling and singling out the "traitor". you aren't fooling anyone here my friend

"the judge"

It was a 5-4 ruling not a 1-0

Anyways, shout out to the weirdo right wingers who have already singled out someone to harass and have her portrait ready to copy pasta on demand in their weirdo twitter thread circle jerks

Totally normal behavior from totally not weirdo cultists

can you please scroll up and point out the part where the term traitor is used?
because if you can not, you're looking like an idiot about now.
being 'defensive' as a basis for a position on a topic is really sophomoric.

The 5-4 decided that the judge had the right to make such a call if he thought it was the right one (that's what I called a psychotic decision).

They didn't answer on the merits ffs, it was a ruling about procedures.

The judge that decided the USA gvmnt had to pay 2 bln THEN litigate to go get them back (from foreign entities which had no escrow capable of covering that amount if they lost at trial) was a single district one.

Lucio called her a traiter

Roccoco asked who "She" was

You immediately had a portrait ready to go identifying who "she" was

You had already singled "her" out and knew who "she" was before I even know and I read the same report.

Liek I said, you aren't fooling anyone here. Its obvious you did some research into who "she" was and that is incredibly telling

I said traitor, he put the picture, we aren't the same person.

Luciom,

Let me ask you a more basic question. Imagine that the federal government enters into a contract with me and agrees to pay me $X amount if I clean the windows of all federal buildings, including the White House. I do the job in a satisfactory manner but the government refuses to pay me. Should I have any legal recourse?

And if the answer is yes, I should be able to get a judgment, what then? If the government refuses to honor the judgment, should a court be able to order the normal remedies (attach assets, freeze accounts, etc.) in favor of the party seeking to enforce the judgment?

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?

In your scenario, I of course would have to prove that I performed. In my hypothetical, there was no dispute about whether I had performed.

The government is no different than a private party in this respect, but that isn't what happened here. No one is claiming that a counterparty to the federal government breached some sort of contract.

The looming issue that wasn't really addressed in this decision is the following: If Congress properly appropriates spending, can the executive branch say "**** that, we aren't going to ship the money." Trump wants the answer to be yes. Historically, at the SCOTUS level, the answer has been no.

Didn't realize Lucio is also versed in US contract law.

In case it isn't obvious, Luciom, I asked you a question involving a contract only because I was trying to understand the extent to which you believe that the executive branch should be allowed to do whatever the **** it wants without any checks by other branches of government.

I love the repeated arguments about the law with Rococo and the conversation is on two different levels.

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’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 opposing party responded by saying - you can’t even sue us and have no right to have courts enforce this at all. Of course, they never said that before you agreed to do the work, but that’s on you as a private party right?