Law be damned, Trump asserts unilateral control over executive branch, federal service (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Following the Project 2025 playbook, in the last week, Trump and his newly installed loyalists have moved to (1) dismiss federal officials deemed unreliable to do his bidding (including 17 inspectors general) - many of which have protections from arbitrary dismissal, (2) freeze all science and public health activity until he can wrest full control, (3) freeze all federal assistance and grant activity deemed inconsistent with Trump's agenda, and (4) moved to terminate all federal employee telework and DEI programs.

The problem is much of this is controlled by federal law and not subject to sudden and complete change by the president through executive order. Most notably is the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that simply codifies what is the constitutional allocation of resources where Congress appropriates money to the executive branch for a specific purpose, the executive branch must carry out that statutory purpose. This is indeed a constitutional crisis and even if Congress abdicates to Trump by acquiescing, the courts must still apply the law - or rule it unconstitutional.

And meanwhile the architect of much of this unlawful action is Russell Vought, Trump’s OMB nominee who the Senate appears ready to confirm.

120. The Impoundment Crisis of 2025

The Trump administration's Monday spending freeze is likely to provoke a crisis over the constitutionality of "impoundment"—one that the justices could well have to resolve *very* soon.

www.stevevladeck.com

 

[RobF]

yeah, I read that, but I want to know if that is as dumb as it sounds from a legal standpoint. As I understand it, the judge is ordering the government to pay for costs already incurred on behalf of the government and at the direction of the government. Which seems to me to be perfectly in line with the a judge's power.

That'd be my take. Additionally, it makes no sense for a member of the supreme court to refer to it as "unchecked" power when they're literally part of a process that checks it, and it seems dubious, if not dangerous, to conflate the effects of the law with the individual judge enforcing that law.

But similarly, I'd like to know if it really is that dubious or if there's some justification for it.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

That'd be my take. Additionally, it makes no sense for a member of the supreme court to refer to it as "unchecked" power when they're literally part of a process that checks it, and it seems dubious, if not dangerous, to conflate the effects of the law with the individual judge enforcing that law.

But similarly, I'd like to know if it really is that dubious or if there's some justification for it.

Exactly, which is why I believe that Alito's dissent is based off of personal ideology and not fidelity to the law! That is something that a Judge, even more, a Supreme Court Justices should be able to recognize and avoid if they had any integrity.

 

[superchuck500]

yeah, I read that, but I want to know if that is as dumb as it sounds from a legal standpoint. As I understand it, the judge is ordering the government to pay for costs already incurred on behalf of the government and at the direction of the government. Which seems to me to be perfectly in line with the a judge's power.

Certainly a judge can order costs already incurred to be paid but Alito says that should be done in the normal course and on the merits of each individual claim for non-payment. He doesn't think the district court has jurisdiction to order administration to make those payments by enjoining the administration's decision to freeze the funding, and he also thinks that decision itself is the subject of sovereign immunity.

His recitation of "what happened" is very selective and only stated to fit his view - it's not a fair account of the situation.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Certainly a judge can order costs already incurred to be paid but Alito says that should be done in the normal course and on the merits of each individual claim for non-payment. He doesn't think the district court has jurisdiction to order administration to make those payments by enjoining the administration's decision to freeze the funding, and he also thinks that decision itself is the subject of sovereign immunity.

His recitation of "what happened" is very selective and only stated to fit his view - it's not a fair account of the situation.

Thanks. It seems to me he'd have a point if the Trump administration had individually gone and rejected payment on individual contracts one at a time for cause, with justifications provided, and then the judge made an order that the government still had to pay them all, en masse. But since the government had refused to pay the contracts en masse without cause, it seems perfectly reasonable for the judge to order the money to be paid (or I guess in legalese, enjoin the decision to freeze the funding). It's a bit distressing that it was a 5-4 decision, because to a laymen this feels like it should be pretty cut and dry.

 

[MT15]

Exactly, which is why I believe that Alito's dissent is based off of personal ideology and not fidelity to the law! That is something that a Judge, even more, a Supreme Court Justices should be able to recognize and avoid if they had any integrity.

Integrity and Alito should never be used in the same sentence.

 

[superchuck500]

The Supreme Court, barely, upholds our three-branch system of government

A bright light — and several dark warnings — in Wednesday's 5-4 vote rejecting the Trump admin's request to toss out a district court order requiring USAID payments.

open.substack.com

 

[MT15]

Just wait until they get hold of birthright citizenship. I’m bracing for that ruling to go south.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[bird]

Here’s a clue. Alito wrote the dissent.

“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? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned,” Alito wrote, joined by the three others.

From this article:

Supreme Court denies Trump administration request to cancel $2 billion in foreign aid — The Hill

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 emergency ruling Wednesday refused to halt a judge’s decision ordering the Trump administration to immediately release nearly $2 billion in foreign aid payments owed under existing contracts.

apple.news

Alito is an idiot. Lose forever? The guy either needs to retire or be impeached.

 

[superchuck500]

Just wait until they get hold of birthright citizenship. I’m bracing for that ruling to go south.

I think that one is just a bridge too far. It’s also worth noting this majority of 5 that includes Roberts and ACB.

She seems pretty disgusted by Trump in this video from last night.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think that one is just a bridge too far. It’s also worth noting this majority of 5 that includes Roberts and ACB.

She seems pretty disgusted by Trump in this video from last night.

ACB while being very conservative has never struck me as being disingenuous. I generally feel like she'll act as an independent agent.

 

[Lapaz]

ACB while being very conservative has never struck me as being disingenuous. I generally feel like she'll act as an independent agent.

ACB will vote with the right wing on anything related to abortion, but it seems that she is pretty independent on everything else. She gives me hope that the Supreme Court will not back Trump's crazy stuff, but we'll see if Trump abides by their rulings. Maybe in time ACB will become more liberal, since that's almost always the moral thing to do.

 

[J-DONK]

Alito is an idiot. Lose forever? The guy either needs to retire or be impeached.

Yeah, he should be impeached for backing unitary executive theory aka "The president is king".

 

[Optimus Prime]

ACB while being very conservative has never struck me as being disingenuous. I generally feel like she'll act as an independent agent.

and MAGA isn't happy about it

 

[Optimus Prime]

ACB while being very conservative has never struck me as being disingenuous. I generally feel like she'll act as an independent agent.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[MT15]

Good!

 

[faceman]

ACB will vote with the right wing on anything related to abortion, but it seems that she is pretty independent on everything else. She gives me hope that the Supreme Court will not back Trump's crazy stuff, but we'll see if Trump abides by their rulings. Maybe in time ACB will become more liberal, since that's almost always the moral thing to do.

I mentioned it earlier,but she's becoming the Anthony Kennedy of the current court. He vote will have to be earned. I have
no problem with that. That said, I do hope she changes her opinion on Roe Vs Wade,