SwigAg11 said:

---

PCC_80 said:

---

I heard something last night about another Judge finding that Trump did have the right to pause/halt funding. Anyone else hear this ? ? Same case ? ?

---

Different judge.

---

Obviously. But, applicable to the same issue ? ? So many cases to keep up with.

No clue. I've lost track at this point with the number of cases and TROs.

This is BS. WTF can Trump do and how fast can he do it? To get these asshats out of the way? Anyone know on solution and timeline?

Surly Trump will not abide by it until it hits the SC. Yall fill me in please

Honest answer: the judiciary does need to consider the extent to which the executive can control the spending of its agencies. Nobody has really tried what Trump and Musk are doing (at least to this extent), and it's the judiciary's job to rule on squabbles between the executive and legislative branches regarding their powers, so the judiciary needs to issue some guidance here.

I'm guessing we'll get a fairly permissive ruling that gives the executive a lot of power to manage budgets of executive agencies, but stops short of allowing it to disband agencies without congressional approval.

Poor little guy

doubledog said:

---

All foreign affairs are handled through the executive branch. Judge needs a good ***** slap.

All DC judges should recuse themselves for obvious conflicts of interests.

---

Now you are talking.

It should work like this. For a suit like that, they must resign and forfeit pension. "Only way to be sure not corrupt motives serving the swam" --- see how many do it.

Other thing. A counter challenge should just be the one follow "we follow the view where its obvious we can" and will halt if it is decided otherwise. In other words, pick your side of the He Said, She said. Which is sort of what Obama and Biden did.

Guess what….he's the executive. Pretty sure the executive is responsible for foreign affairs.

CowboyGirl said:

---

doubledog said:

---

All foreign affairs are handled through the executive branch. Judge needs a good ***** slap.

All DC judges should recuse themselves for obvious conflicts of interests.

---

Funding the government, though, is a Congressional power under the Constitution. If Congress has appropriated $XX billion for foreign aid, with no other specifications, the President can eliminate funding from Colombian Trans Operas and spend all $XX billion for mosquito nets in Africa. What he can't do is cancel all foreign aid immediately, especially where legally executed contracts have been signed.

The way to do this to take the courts out of the equation would be for Musk to make his list of everything that ought to be canceled and the President should send a rescission request to Congress asking them to cancel the funding. That has the added benefit of either making the Democrats vote for the crap or admit it's wasteful.

---

This is a 90 day pause to review all the contracts.

If Congress appropriated $1B for X, then USAID can ONLY spend the money on X. But, we know that USAID is sketchy.

In fact, if USAID is spending some of it on Y, then the executive branch is essentially in violation of the law because they were not authorized to spend it on Y.

So, a review of the contracts is necessary to ensure that they are only spending it on X.

This judge just ordered the executive branch to potentially violate the law.

I'm all for reducting the size of the government. Doesn't change the judiciary's role in the process.

Does this impact if Trump/executive can either not pay the contract or just default on all contracts instead of "cancelling" them?

BlackGold said:

---

Does this impact if Trump/executive can either not pay the contract or just default on all contracts instead of "cancelling" them?

---

We wait for Trumps team to appeal this bs order

FrioAg 00 said:

---

A lot of what Trump is doing right now is a trap for liberal judges.

Not only will he succeed on appeal all the way to SCOTUS, but in the process he will (1) greatly shift budgetary power from congressional branch to executive branch and (2) create the cases necessary to eliminate nationally applied rulings by lower district courts.


That second one has been the desired target for Justice Thomas for some time now.

---

He's had four years and bottomless pit of funds to hire the best legal scholars and lawyers to plan this out.

How did the very notion of a nationwide injunction ever get traction? How is it one corrupt city in one state can overthrow the will of the other 49 states to serve a narrow agenda? If anything makes our system seems like a farce it is is this constant ploy being allowed. And why isn't it immediately referred to SC -- -as the only ones who can rule on it in a final sense anyway?

It's just a federal judge. Trump should ignore it until the SCOTUS weighs in.

Let all these judges speak up. Let's us know who's on the cut.

What are the possibilities of restationing these judges? I'm not sure that we have enough in say, American Samoa. Or how about Marshall Islands? Maybe the 1st Court should go cover there.

Hey judge.

laavispa said:

---

Here we have a Federal Judge, Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali , who "might' have a conflict of interest in restoring aid to ME organizations. Accord to bio he is Canadian-American. Has been on the federal D. C. bench since November 2024. Apparently another Biden DEI hire.

---

Canadian-born Muslim who is a naturalized US citizen. Family came from Egypt. Wikipedia leaves out a lot of these details.

samurai_science said:

---

Trumps team needs to appeal this soon

---

Well yes, but until then ignore it. The judiciary is way out of bounds on the executive policing itself. It'd be awesome if Trump told them to F.O.

FYI the conservatives definitely need to up their lawfare arsenal. Seems we are always playing catch-up here. That needs to change.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

Honest answer: the judiciary does need to consider the extent to which the executive can control the spending of its agencies. Nobody has really tried what Trump and Musk are doing (at least to this extent), and it's the judiciary's job to rule on squabbles between the executive and legislative branches regarding their powers, so the judiciary needs to issue some guidance here.

I'm guessing we'll get a fairly permissive ruling that gives the executive a lot of power to manage budgets of executive agencies, but stops short of allowing it to disband agencies without congressional approval.

---

Have any of these suits been brought by the legislature?

BlackGold said:

---

Does this impact if Trump/executive can either not pay the contract or just default on all contracts instead of "cancelling" them?

---

I don't think it's a contract in the normal sense of contracts. As stated above, these are government grants.

The recipients of these grants are under no obligation to provide anything tangible in exchange for the money.... And therein lies the problem with the judge's ruling.

The fact that this judge didn't recuse himself with an apparent personal conflict of interest is in itself quite revealing.

ttu_85 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Trumps team needs to appeal this soon

---

Well yes, but until then ignore it. The judiciary is way out of bounds on the executive policing itself. It'd be awesome if Trump told them to F.O.

FYI the conservatives definitely need to up their lawfare arsenal. Seems we are always playing catch-up here. That needs to change.

---

Can't Trump's team just do the same thing as the Dems did and get a conservative judge to rule that they have the authority to stop the grants? Seems to be the quickest workaround until the appeal is heard...

That doesn't really work around anything.

If a judge in Texas denies the request for an injunction, and a judge in New York grants the request for an injunction, the injunction is still in place!

So, federal judges are taking over the executive departments? Fast track to SCOTUS.

ttu_85 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Trumps team needs to appeal this soon

---

Well yes, but until then ignore it. The judiciary is way out of bounds on the executive policing itself. It'd be awesome if Trump told them to F.O.

FYI the conservatives definitely need to up their lawfare arsenal. Seems we are always playing catch-up here. That needs to change.

---

THIS.

Also, Rex Racer solved this better on another thread. This approach could go for some other powers and positions actions:

Quote:

---

Rex Racer said:
I suggested to my wife that the Treasury Secretary should just hire Musk as a Chief Auditor for $1 per year. Then he wouldn't need any confirmation or anything, and he would be an employee who has authority to look at everything.

Once Treasury is looked at, he resigns and the Secretary of Education hires him for $1 per year as Chief Auditor, and so on, and so on...

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3527759/replies/69655796

---

ProgN said:

---

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14396511/Trump-usaid-funding-freeze-halted-judge.html

Quote:

---

A federal judge has delivered a blow to President Trump's USAID spending freeze with an order that demands he reinstate funds for hundreds of foreign aid contracts.


Judge Amir Ali issued the order on Thursday in response to a lawsuit brought about by companies receiving the funding for programs abroad.

Ali, a Washington DC judge appointed by former president Joe Biden, accused the Trump administration of an 'arbitrary and capricious' act in halting the funding.

---

Quote:

---

He said the decision to suspend funding for 90 days while conducting a thorough review of each contract and its validity has not been justified or rationalized.

'At least to date, Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid,' he said.

Instead, he said the decision has 'set off a shockwave and upended... thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations around the country.

'Absent temporary injunctive relief, therefore, the scale of the enormous harm that has already occurred will almost certainly increase.'

The ruling marks the first to temporarily roll back a Trump administration funding freeze on foreign assistance.

---

I find it abhorrent that prog judges are allowed to prevent Trump/DOGE from trying to stop the fiscal implosion of the US. **** it, load up on food, medicine, and ammo and let the whole damn thing burn down.

---

Trump has fired most of the USAID staff. Who is left to work with these contractors?

Why does it take so long to appeal?

Im Gipper said:

---

That doesn't really work around anything.

If a judge in Texas denies the request for an injunction, and a judge in New York grants the request for an injunction, the injunction is still in place!

---

Normally as far as I'm aware, an injunction has been an order for someone to cease or stop an action.

This seems strange that this DC judge is ruling that the Govt MUST write a check and must do it NOW.

He's completely ignoring the fact that the Govt - as well as the American people - might be irreparably harmed by the order, never mind the fact that a single judicial activist judge is attempting to force an action by the executive branch.

Furthermore, unless there was a specific payment timeline AND specific recipients of the aid mandated in the Congressional authorization of funding to USAid, it is the purview of the Executive branch as to how much and when those grants are paid.

So I guess it's not possible for the govt. to obtain an injunction against the judge for gross violation of the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution, and therefore issuing of an unlawful order?

How the hell can these judges keep doing this bull*****

Yes, its truly time to follow the Andrew Jackson precedent. The previous administration was a nest of criminals and so was any elevated by them.

samurai_science said:

---

Why does it take so long to appeal?

---

A TRO is not appealable because it is not a final order like an injunction is.