Yes . . .I heard suits against the freeze in grant funding but not about the aid halts, but that is just as illegal; statutes passed by Congress and signed by the President entail those funds need to be spent as directed.
A President doesn't just get to halt contractual agreements to review and then only spend the money if he agrees with it. Doing so means not only any congressional spending deal is worth nothing, but any financial agreement the U.S. signs with an entity isn't worth the paper its printed on either, because we are not a trustworthy partner. It destabilizes everything.
I mean, are Republicans really thinking this through? With this precedent, a hypothetical future POTUS AOC could pass a bipartisan funding deal, and then just axe huge components of the defense spending, as well as any funding directed to the oil/gas industry, because it doesn't align "with the goals of her administration." Do they really want to go down that road??
I mean, the more establishment ones at least try to play some prevent defense though re: institutional norms. It's why they haven't killed the filibuster, because come the next D trifecta with a 51 seat Dem Senate majority, Dems would pass the wishlist to Santa and add the asks for the Easter Bunny for dessert.
I mean, yes that was my first thought-they'll pray the courts do their job for them. But what if he defies the courts (as I expect is likely) . . . then what?
Then weтАЩre over the Rubicon. My suspicion is that the bulk of the GOP (wrongly) thinks it wonтАЩt come to that, especially since a lot of them are cozy with FedSoc
Paleo, youтАЩre absolutely right: This has to he taken to court.
The probably-insurmountable problem is that President Musk is moving at lightning speed, with a carefully-prepared blueprint and playbook, and throughout the entire government. (!!!) And American courts move far too slowly, as we saw (by design) in all the cases against Trump.
At some point, SCOTUS is going to have a case before them where they'll have to decide between Donald Trump and the Constitution, as much as the conservative justices in the bench don't want that.
Considering their "official acts" immunity ruling, I'm not optimistic about how that will turn out when it happens.
They'll twist themselves into knots to create a standard that is inherently arbitrary so that republicans can violate the constitution but democrats cannot repeat the same action.
I have a hard time seeing Barrett, Roberts or Kavanaugh saying the Executive can just flat out ignore statute and impound funds. That turns us into a banana republic.
Once again, this needs to be taken to court
Yes . . .I heard suits against the freeze in grant funding but not about the aid halts, but that is just as illegal; statutes passed by Congress and signed by the President entail those funds need to be spent as directed.
A President doesn't just get to halt contractual agreements to review and then only spend the money if he agrees with it. Doing so means not only any congressional spending deal is worth nothing, but any financial agreement the U.S. signs with an entity isn't worth the paper its printed on either, because we are not a trustworthy partner. It destabilizes everything.
I mean, are Republicans really thinking this through? With this precedent, a hypothetical future POTUS AOC could pass a bipartisan funding deal, and then just axe huge components of the defense spending, as well as any funding directed to the oil/gas industry, because it doesn't align "with the goals of her administration." Do they really want to go down that road??
Yes, because they are in power. They don't have any principles and fight anything any Democrat does. You already know that.
I mean, the more establishment ones at least try to play some prevent defense though re: institutional norms. It's why they haven't killed the filibuster, because come the next D trifecta with a 51 seat Dem Senate majority, Dems would pass the wishlist to Santa and add the asks for the Easter Bunny for dessert.
The тАЬvote no, hope yesтАЭ coward caucus once again expects Ds to bail them out from the lunacy of their own base, this time via lawsuits and TROs
I mean, yes that was my first thought-they'll pray the courts do their job for them. But what if he defies the courts (as I expect is likely) . . . then what?
Then weтАЩre over the Rubicon. My suspicion is that the bulk of the GOP (wrongly) thinks it wonтАЩt come to that, especially since a lot of them are cozy with FedSoc
Paleo, youтАЩre absolutely right: This has to he taken to court.
The probably-insurmountable problem is that President Musk is moving at lightning speed, with a carefully-prepared blueprint and playbook, and throughout the entire government. (!!!) And American courts move far too slowly, as we saw (by design) in all the cases against Trump.
They move fast when they issue injunctions.
At some point, SCOTUS is going to have a case before them where they'll have to decide between Donald Trump and the Constitution, as much as the conservative justices in the bench don't want that.
Considering their "official acts" immunity ruling, I'm not optimistic about how that will turn out when it happens.
They'll twist themselves into knots to create a standard that is inherently arbitrary so that republicans can violate the constitution but democrats cannot repeat the same action.
Roberts is going to have to make a choice; surprisingly, Barrett may vote with the liberals
I have a hard time seeing Barrett, Roberts or Kavanaugh saying the Executive can just flat out ignore statute and impound funds. That turns us into a banana republic.
Don't put them above approving that if they get a cut. Maybe not Barrett, but the others.
I tend to agree but I want proof