科技回声

3 条评论

The order (PDF): <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf</a>Crazy to believe this was 5-4 when it's a straight and plain constitutional duty (and history always rejected attempts for the president to change such budgets).Reading the dissenting opinion:>Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks juris- diction have the unchecked power to compel the Govern- ment of the United States to pay out (and probably lose for- ever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunnedI know it's naive to think judges try to be non-partisan, but still. This was a pretty damning opening>As a result, the Government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste—not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered.No, it's definitely because the law requires it. I'm shocked a judge (let alone a supreme court justice) would speak like this on an official document. And the 3 others would sign off on this.>As the Nation’s highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused.But not the president, apparently. This whole first section is barely based on the actual funding. He's just attacking another judge.

duxup2 个月前

At this point it is just an administrative decision to uphold the lower court's decision, for now. The lower court is still working their way through the case and hasn't made a decision either as far as I can tell. This is all a "for now" type decision while the legal process plays out.As usual Alito somehow manages ignore the context when it is convenient:"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) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?"It's not like this money just was being spent at random, budgeting for it went through congress and the executive branch already...That line reads more like you'd find on some BS right wing talking points list... not an honest argument.

hn_acker2 个月前

> In his dissent, Alito wrote that because of the Supreme Court's order, the government must pay the $2 billion at issue "not because the law requires it, but simply because a district judge so ordered."Justice Alito is straight up lying here. The contractors (AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council) already performed work for USAID in line with the Foreign Assistance Act (the legislative act that created USAID), so the federal government owes the contractors money [1]. Elon Musk, Trump, and DOGE froze USAID payments and are blocking USAID from fulfilling its end of the contracts, which is illegal impoundment (after Nixon's presidency) [2]. The four dissenting Justices in this case are directly contradicting the Biden v. Nebraska student loan debt ruling that they all signed onto (no blanket student loan debt relief without an appropriate act of Congress, which the HEROES Act was not) [1][3].The district judge in this case was enforcing Congress's power of the purse, a check that the legislative branch has on the executive branch. Alito and the other dissenting Justices are pretending that the judge is only relying on the judicial branch's check of interpretation on the executive branch.[1] Alito "Stunned" By Court Exercising Judicial Power He Championed & Expanded Just Months Ago <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/06/alito-stunned-by-court-exercising-judicial-power-he-championed-expanded-just-months-ago/" rel="nofollow">https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/06/alito-stunned-by-court-e...</a>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...</a>[3] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_v._Nebraska" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_v._Nebraska</a>

3 条评论

johnnyanmac2 个月前

duxup2 个月前

hn_acker2 个月前

Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to keep $2B in foreign aid frozen

3 条评论

Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to keep $2B in foreign aid frozen

3 条评论