There are so many examples but let's use a recent one for an example. I'd really like the legal answer on how a judge can force payment to continue through USAID. Like what happens legally when a judge does this? How it is enforced and by whom?

Or it is just a bunch of blustering and grandstanding?

What is notable is how much of that is based upon supposed harm being done.

But some agendas should be harmed, and stopped, at once.

Seems more needed here.

If this is likely to be of short duration, so be it. But if its some long-term stall, poster Rex Racer had at any rate come up with what looks like a good temporary work-around

Quote:

---

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...

---

So this was issued. Does that mean Marco Rubio et all in contempt of court if they keep restricting those payments? What are the actual consequences?

Lawfare. They're just stalling and trying to keep Trump from doing what he was elected to do.

The standard is supposed to be not just "harm" but immediate irreparable injury

Probably nothing. Maybe a congressional hearing? Problem is republicans control both houses and Bondi wouldn't let the DOJ prosecute anything.

When (R)s challenge something judges claim we have to wait until the harm has materialized. When (D)s challenge something the mere fear of a possible harm is apparently enough.

DamnGood86 said:

---

My former company did engineering consulting work for cities, counties and the State. Every contract we ever signed had a termination of convenience clause, favoring the client.

This gave them contractual authority to terminate the agreement at any time, for no reason whatsoever. I can't imagine the federal government doesn't have such a clause in all of their agreements.

---

While i agree with you conceptually, given what we have seen its a long shot. I would argue there may be an escalutor for the vendor to get everythimg.

Government is a mess and its being brought out every day., unfortunately. Change is good and bring ir on.

Im Gipper said:

---

The standard is supposed to be not just "harm" but immediate irreparable injury

---

So its more flimsy than looks. There was a line in there to the effect about "even though Sec Rubio had made changes to prevent harm, "harm is likely to continue" -- so just out of thin air.

Now one blocked him from withholding federal funds for sex changes for minors.

This is Fing BS and I heard Roberts opinion, he thinks it should be up to the local representatives. such a cooch ass

Europe did studies on this crap and showed nothing good comes from it. You know it is bad when we are more liberal than Europe.

Disgusting people Fing pushing cutting off boobs and wieners of kids, KIDS!

lol at this question. There's three branches of government that check and balance each other.

A president is not a dictator and the constitution says that the congress controls the purse. President can't just bypass congress on certain things by executive order.

Well a corrupt vice president can withhold foreign country aid if that foreign country does not fire top prosecutor investigating son's company.

It happened.

I don't recall that happening in the Biden administration

nhamp07 said:

---

lol at this question. There's three branches of government that check and balance each other.

A president is not a dictator and the constitution says that the congress controls the purse. President can't just bypass congress on certain things by executive order.

---

I asked on another thread, has congress initiated any of these suits?

taxpreparer said:

---

nhamp07 said:

---

lol at this question. There's three branches of government that check and balance each other.

A president is not a dictator and the constitution says that the congress controls the purse. President can't just bypass congress on certain things by executive order.

---

I asked on another thread, has congress initiated any of these suits?

---

What do you want congress to do? POTUS does not work at the direction of Congress. Why people think this belies the equal part of the separate but equal branches of government. None is superior to the other.

The President is neither beholden by Congress nor the courts short of impeachment. Period. The end.

Without that, the system does not work. Equally, POTUS cannot direct the Judicial nor can he direct Congress.

The ONLY reason a President is not a dictator is that he can be peacefully and lawfully removed by Congress.

flown-the-coop said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

nhamp07 said:

---

lol at this question. There's three branches of government that check and balance each other.

A president is not a dictator and the constitution says that the congress controls the purse. President can't just bypass congress on certain things by executive order.

---

I asked on another thread, has congress initiated any of these suits?

---

What do you want congress to do? POTUS does not work at the direction of Congress. Why people think this belies the equal part of the separate but equal branches of government. None is superior to the other.

The President is neither beholden by Congress nor the courts short of impeachment. Period. The end.

Without that, the system does not work. Equally, POTUS cannot direct the Judicial nor can he direct Congress.

The ONLY reason a President is not a dictator is that he can be peacefully and lawfully removed by Congress.

---

Congress is the party that should have standing in these cases, since it us the body that allocates the funds.

taxpreparer said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

nhamp07 said:

---

lol at this question. There's three branches of government that check and balance each other.

A president is not a dictator and the constitution says that the congress controls the purse. President can't just bypass congress on certain things by executive order.

---

I asked on another thread, has congress initiated any of these suits?

---

What do you want congress to do? POTUS does not work at the direction of Congress. Why people think this belies the equal part of the separate but equal branches of government. None is superior to the other.

The President is neither beholden by Congress nor the courts short of impeachment. Period. The end.

Without that, the system does not work. Equally, POTUS cannot direct the Judicial nor can he direct Congress.

The ONLY reason a President is not a dictator is that he can be peacefully and lawfully removed by Congress.

---

Congress is the party that should have standing in these cases, since it us the body that allocates the funds.

---

Congress is the body that drafts, passes, changes law and approves the budget proposed by the Executive.

Congress does have a SAY in how much and where funds are ultimately allocated… to an extent. But they do not on their own decide - at least that is not how it was designed.

Don't fall for MSM and Pelosi talking points that Congress has this total control over the money. It is simply… incorrect.

nhamp07 said:

---

lol at this question. There's three branches of government that check and balance each other.

A president is not a dictator and the constitution says that the congress controls the purse. President can't just bypass congress on certain things by executive order.

---

While I agree with you in principle, what mechanism could the courts utilize to make him follow their order?

I think you misunderstand me. My stance is, if congress is not initiating these suits, the judges should sit down and shut up.

Oh I agree and thought that is where you were going. Giving standing to the guys in these suits where they have yet to be harmed and have yet to show any legal basis to their claim is total nonsense.

When your executive order is clearly in conflict with the Constitution as determined by SCOTUS, then sure….block it. His EO on citizenship was clearly in conflict - by design to get it back in front of SCOTUS. Some of his other EOs are the same. He has a friendly court.

MagnumLoad said:

---

I don't recall that happening in the Biden administration

---

The corrupt President was Biden's boss at the time. He is referring to that video of the basically shake-down by Biden.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Let Rubio defy order, judge can do whatever foot stomping he wants.

Trump has said he will follow the courts, but as these liberal judges become increasingly unhinged, that may change.

Hell, charge and convict Rubio of whatever you want, Trump can just pardon.

There is only ONE mechanism to reign in a POTUS intent on doing something.

Dems have used that ONE mechanism so oft now in their rhetoric it lacks meaning.

---

Don't.

N/m

nhamp07 said:

---

lol at this question. There's three branches of government that check and balance each other, but those checks on each other also have specific limits spelled out in the constitution to prevent one branch from becoming tyrannical. (FIFY)

A president is not a dictator and the constitution says that the congress controls the purse. President can't just bypass congress on certain things by executive order.

---

Giving one branch a blank cheque to check the power of another branch is also a counter-check to a runaway branch of government unconstitutionally telling another branch what to do.

The President's fully constitutional power to not spend money allocated by congress is a great counter check to a runaway congress.

SCOTUS' power to interpret the law is a fully constitutional check on the President's power.

The President simply ignoring a lower-courts bogus unconstitutional ruling until it reaches SCOTUS is a great counter-check against a runaway judiciary. Allowing the judiciary to just make up rulings on whatever they want, especially when they are not specifically interpretations of the law, just sets up tyranny.

If the Judiciary really wants to limit the cuts of spending that Trump / Musk is doing, SCOTUS needs to weigh in. If it's really important to do that sooner than later, SCOTUS needs to weigh in now, not later.

flown-the-coop said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

nhamp07 said:

---

lol at this question. There's three branches of government that check and balance each other.

A president is not a dictator and the constitution says that the congress controls the purse. President can't just bypass congress on certain things by executive order.

---

I asked on another thread, has congress initiated any of these suits?

---

What do you want congress to do? POTUS does not work at the direction of Congress. Why people think this belies the equal part of the separate but equal branches of government. None is superior to the other.

The President is neither beholden by Congress nor the courts short of impeachment. Period. The end.

Without that, the system does not work. Equally, POTUS cannot direct the Judicial nor can he direct Congress.

The ONLY reason a President is not a dictator is that he can be peacefully and lawfully removed by Congress.

---

Congress is the party that should have standing in these cases, since it us the body that allocates the funds.

---

Congress is the body that drafts, passes, changes law and approves the budget proposed by the Executive.

Congress does have a SAY in how much and where funds are ultimately allocated… to an extent. But they do not on their own decide - at least that is not how it was designed.

Don't fall for MSM and Pelosi talking points that Congress has this total control over the money. It is simply… incorrect.

---

Obama and Biden both agree with you, and there are video clips of each specifically agreeing with you.

B-1 83 said:

---

When your executive order is clearly in conflict with the Constitution as determined by SCOTUS, then sure….block it. His EO on citizenship was clearly in conflict - by design to get it back in front of SCOTUS. Some of his other EOs are the same. He has a friendly court.

---

If SCOTUS thinks it is important, they should weigh in immediately, even if it is just a TRO until SCOTUS and draft an opinion.

Ignoring a crazy-ass third tier tyrannical idiots rambling opinion that has zero legal reasoning is very different than POTUS completely ignoring SCOTUS.