Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Divided Supreme Court rejects Trump administration's push to rebuke judge over foreign aid freeze
MSN.com ^ | 3/5/2025 | Mark Sherman

Posted on 03/05/2025 6:49:26 AM PST by CaptainK

A sharply divided Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration push to rebuke a federal judge who imposed a quick deadline to release billions of dollars in foreign aid.

The court’s action leaves in place Ali’s temporary restraining order that had paused the spending freeze, Ali is holding a hearing Thursday to consider a more lasting pause.

The majority noted that the administration had not challenged Ali’s initial order, only the deadline.

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
The court told Ali to “clarify what obligations the government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timeline
1 posted on 03/05/2025 6:49:26 AM PST by CaptainK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

The Supremes aren’t siding with Judge they are sending her ruling back to the drawing board

“The majority noted that the administration had not challenged Ali’s initial order, only the deadline.”


2 posted on 03/05/2025 6:51:53 AM PST by CaptainK ("No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up” )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

OK in plain English what the hell does all that mean?


3 posted on 03/05/2025 6:52:16 AM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

They have to re-file is that what it means? I don’t get it. I thought it was a done deal and a win for the lawfare judge. So where do Trump‘s lawyers go from here?


4 posted on 03/05/2025 6:54:50 AM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

Back to law school.................


5 posted on 03/05/2025 6:56:41 AM PST by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

The RAT slush fund lives!!!


6 posted on 03/05/2025 6:56:57 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (SCOTUS stuck it to Americans again. Africa and other failed communist dumps are our responsibility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

I hope Trump gets to replace the wide “Latinx.”


7 posted on 03/05/2025 6:57:52 AM PST by clintonh8r (The truth is hate speech to those who hate the truth. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

For now.

Deep State was never gonna be delenda est in a day.


8 posted on 03/05/2025 6:58:20 AM PST by mewzilla (Swing away, Mr. President, swing away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

There’s only one take away from this shit sandwich..LawFare has been emboldened and the Supreme Court is NOT our friend. We need to increase the house and the Senate numbers so that we can bypass the SC by passing laws and bills. That’s the only way. And excuse my ignorance for not knowing Supreme Court lingual!


9 posted on 03/05/2025 7:02:29 AM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

My guess is that the president can now ignore this because the supposed emergency time frame is long past, thereby proving there was no emergency.

The basic issue is whether an inferior court judge can tell a president how to spend money. That is what needed to be heard. Apparently it wasn’t. It was about a timeline to release money.

I think congress is the only entity that can legislate away the inferior court seized power of imposing national injunction and presidential decrees. That needs to be halted.

To pass, it will have to be in the spending bill because the filibuster rules don’t apply to spending. Also add in the bill preventing boys in female sports.


10 posted on 03/05/2025 7:04:48 AM PST by xzins (Retired US Army chaplain. Support our troops by praying for their victory. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

Had the Republican lawyers asked SCOTUS to vacate the original order and not just the timeline, they might have had a differnt outcome.

As it is they simply got the final ruling delayed for a short while................


11 posted on 03/05/2025 7:05:14 AM PST by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Oh I thought it was a final ruling. Me bad. Maybe that’s why it’s not trending anywhere else as big breaking news. Correct?


12 posted on 03/05/2025 7:19:12 AM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

Most likely. This isn’t a major ruling, just playing legal
word games..............


13 posted on 03/05/2025 7:20:57 AM PST by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

Oh forgot to say… so you’re telling me Trump doesn’t have the smartest sharpest lawyers in his drawer? Oh boy! Seems they dropped the ball. Or they took it for granted the Supreme Court was going to rule on their behalf. The sooner those dumb lawyers wake up and smell the coffee the better Trump can fight and win these cases. The Supreme Court is not our friend …some SCJ’s on our side are afflicted with TDS. I don’t know what part of that sentence they do not understand.


14 posted on 03/05/2025 7:24:52 AM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

The Supremes told Trump to pay for work already completed. Seems fair.


15 posted on 03/05/2025 7:33:51 AM PST by chuck allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chuck allen
Seems fair.

So long as the contractor can show the deliverables. Otherwise, fraud.

16 posted on 03/05/2025 7:37:21 AM PST by Magnum44 (...against all enemies, foreign and domestic... )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

It means the SC is unwilling to reign in lower courts. The other two branches need to exert their power and dissolve a lower court to send a shot across the bow.


17 posted on 03/05/2025 7:44:48 AM PST by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

Lawyers don’t speak or think in plain English.


18 posted on 03/05/2025 8:07:07 AM PST by Bonemaker (invictus maneo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chuck allen
>>The Supremes told Trump to pay for work already completed. Seems fair.<<

That would be fair if there was work that had actually been done...

19 posted on 03/05/2025 8:24:51 AM PST by Smittie (Just like an alien I'm a stranger in a strange land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

At least he has to get out his pencil instead of broad brushing. I’ll bet neither Roberts nor Coney thought of that, must have been a nuance they picked up from the minority in oral argument. Meanwhile, Federalist Society and whoever else compiled the list of judicial appointments in Trump I need to call for her resignation immediately. The way the Republicans fought for her through the Senate confirmation, only to have her follow Sotomayor around like a poodle disgusts.


20 posted on 03/05/2025 11:40:36 AM PST by sopo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson