Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was crazy. He literally spread his religion around the globe and said rich men could not get into heaven. Rich men were like passing a camel through the “eye of a needle.”

We don’t have either of those items in the US. But the idea is that it’s really hard to get into heaven and enjoy eternal love if you are rich!

That is why we shut it all down. Pro poor in that agency. America is not pro poor at all any more. Peace corps is the worst . I don’t know why they didn’t bring those kids home yet.

There is a lot of truth in this post. The declining influence of mainstream churches and the teachings of Jesus have contributed greatly to our current situation, not just shutting down USAID but also Trump in general. Nowadays it seems like most people are religious wackos (like Vance and his twisted form of Catholicism), atheists, or in some sort of wellness cult. There is a lot of blame to go around for this turn of events, including the Catholic Church not keeping its house clean (to say the least) but part of what we are seeing today is the result of people becoming unmoored from any sort of moral code. Organized religion doesn’t have to provide that moral code, but for a lot of people it did, and now there is a vacuum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather amazing that there are 4 supreme court justices who do not believe federal contracts should be enforceable.

Replying to myself, these same four Justices held Biden could not use a statute passed by Congress for student debt relief because the statute authorized it but needed to extra double authorize it.

But for Trump, he can simply ignore statutes and appropriations entirely, Congress is irrelevant.

Many SCOTUS opinions are just reverse-engineering to whatever policy outcome the majority wants. I remember going to law school naively thinking that the justices were paragons of reasoned thinking, but that the more I learned, the more it was clearly just "We hate this administration and its policies" or "We like this administration and its policies" determining an outcome.

Yes, but Roberts likes to pontificate about upholding the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution. So he doesn't want to look entirely like a political hack in this case, but it doesn't bode well that the vote was so close.

It’s a miracle these 2 did the right thing by telling the government to pay its contractually obligated bills for services rendered.

But it’s a small victory.

The reality is NGOs staffed up to implement programs at the request of the government and covered by contracts. While this latest decision says the govt must pay what they already owe, it doesn’t say they must also honor the contracts moving forward.

And that’s a big problem.

Don’t worry. Trump might just mess with the composition of the Supreme Court . Religious people are a form of the deep state. They act independently and are not predictable. They believe in scripture that is thousands of years old.

He can't mess with the composition of the Supreme Court without deaths / resignations of members and/or Congress' approval. We still don't know what Congress really thinks or will do.

He can’t do a lot of things. Yet he does. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was crazy. He literally spread his religion around the globe and said rich men could not get into heaven. Rich men were like passing a camel through the “eye of a needle.”

We don’t have either of those items in the US. But the idea is that it’s really hard to get into heaven and enjoy eternal love if you are rich!

That is why we shut it all down. Pro poor in that agency. America is not pro poor at all any more. Peace corps is the worst . I don’t know why they didn’t bring those kids home yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather amazing that there are 4 supreme court justices who do not believe federal contracts should be enforceable.

Replying to myself, these same four Justices held Biden could not use a statute passed by Congress for student debt relief because the statute authorized it but needed to extra double authorize it.

But for Trump, he can simply ignore statutes and appropriations entirely, Congress is irrelevant.

Many SCOTUS opinions are just reverse-engineering to whatever policy outcome the majority wants. I remember going to law school naively thinking that the justices were paragons of reasoned thinking, but that the more I learned, the more it was clearly just "We hate this administration and its policies" or "We like this administration and its policies" determining an outcome.

Yes, but Roberts likes to pontificate about upholding the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution. So he doesn't want to look entirely like a political hack in this case, but it doesn't bode well that the vote was so close.

It’s a miracle these 2 did the right thing by telling the government to pay its contractually obligated bills for services rendered.

But it’s a small victory.

The reality is NGOs staffed up to implement programs at the request of the government and covered by contracts. While this latest decision says the govt must pay what they already owe, it doesn’t say they must also honor the contracts moving forward.

And that’s a big problem.

Don’t worry. Trump might just mess with the composition of the Supreme Court . Religious people are a form of the deep state. They act independently and are not predictable. They believe in scripture that is thousands of years old.

He can't mess with the composition of the Supreme Court without deaths / resignations of members and/or Congress' approval. We still don't know what Congress really thinks or will do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court opinion came down - Trump lost. The government needs to pay its already incurred bills.

What is supporting the theory that the government does not need to pay for work that has ALREADY BEEN DONE?

Breach of contract is supposed to go to Court of Claims. This court lacks jurisdiction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court opinion came down - Trump lost. The government needs to pay its already incurred bills.

What is supporting the theory that the government does not need to pay for work that has ALREADY BEEN DONE?

Breach of contract is supposed to go to Court of Claims. This court lacks jurisdiction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court opinion came down - Trump lost. The government needs to pay its already incurred bills.

What is supporting the theory that the government does not need to pay for work that has ALREADY BEEN DONE?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather amazing that there are 4 supreme court justices who do not believe federal contracts should be enforceable.

Replying to myself, these same four Justices held Biden could not use a statute passed by Congress for student debt relief because the statute authorized it but needed to extra double authorize it.

But for Trump, he can simply ignore statutes and appropriations entirely, Congress is irrelevant.

Many SCOTUS opinions are just reverse-engineering to whatever policy outcome the majority wants. I remember going to law school naively thinking that the justices were paragons of reasoned thinking, but that the more I learned, the more it was clearly just "We hate this administration and its policies" or "We like this administration and its policies" determining an outcome.

Yes, but Roberts likes to pontificate about upholding the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution. So he doesn't want to look entirely like a political hack in this case, but it doesn't bode well that the vote was so close.

It’s a miracle these 2 did the right thing by telling the government to pay its contractually obligated bills for services rendered.

But it’s a small victory.

The reality is NGOs staffed up to implement programs at the request of the government and covered by contracts. While this latest decision says the govt must pay what they already owe, it doesn’t say they must also honor the contracts moving forward.

And that’s a big problem.

Don’t worry. Trump might just mess with the composition of the Supreme Court . Religious people are a form of the deep state. They act independently and are not predictable. They believe in scripture that is thousands of years old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather amazing that there are 4 supreme court justices who do not believe federal contracts should be enforceable.

Replying to myself, these same four Justices held Biden could not use a statute passed by Congress for student debt relief because the statute authorized it but needed to extra double authorize it.

But for Trump, he can simply ignore statutes and appropriations entirely, Congress is irrelevant.

Many SCOTUS opinions are just reverse-engineering to whatever policy outcome the majority wants. I remember going to law school naively thinking that the justices were paragons of reasoned thinking, but that the more I learned, the more it was clearly just "We hate this administration and its policies" or "We like this administration and its policies" determining an outcome.

Yes, but Roberts likes to pontificate about upholding the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution. So he doesn't want to look entirely like a political hack in this case, but it doesn't bode well that the vote was so close.

It’s a miracle these 2 did the right thing by telling the government to pay its contractually obligated bills for services rendered.

But it’s a small victory.

The reality is NGOs staffed up to implement programs at the request of the government and covered by contracts. While this latest decision says the govt must pay what they already owe, it doesn’t say they must also honor the contracts moving forward.

And that’s a big problem.

Of course. And just because the SCOTUS has ordered the govt to pay for work already completed, it doesn't mean that Rubio, Marocco and co will actually have it done or have it done in a timely and professional way. You could make life very difficult for tiny NGOs overseas by requiring them to file suit to get paid or something that would be out of the depth of possibility for a small organization who can't afford the legal fees. And that will further impoverish people who have worked without pay and create even worse feelings about the USA overseas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather amazing that there are 4 supreme court justices who do not believe federal contracts should be enforceable.

Replying to myself, these same four Justices held Biden could not use a statute passed by Congress for student debt relief because the statute authorized it but needed to extra double authorize it.

But for Trump, he can simply ignore statutes and appropriations entirely, Congress is irrelevant.

Many SCOTUS opinions are just reverse-engineering to whatever policy outcome the majority wants. I remember going to law school naively thinking that the justices were paragons of reasoned thinking, but that the more I learned, the more it was clearly just "We hate this administration and its policies" or "We like this administration and its policies" determining an outcome.

Yes, but Roberts likes to pontificate about upholding the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution. So he doesn't want to look entirely like a political hack in this case, but it doesn't bode well that the vote was so close.

It’s a miracle these 2 did the right thing by telling the government to pay its contractually obligated bills for services rendered.

But it’s a small victory.

The reality is NGOs staffed up to implement programs at the request of the government and covered by contracts. While this latest decision says the govt must pay what they already owe, it doesn’t say they must also honor the contracts moving forward.

And that’s a big problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather amazing that there are 4 supreme court justices who do not believe federal contracts should be enforceable.

Replying to myself, these same four Justices held Biden could not use a statute passed by Congress for student debt relief because the statute authorized it but needed to extra double authorize it.

But for Trump, he can simply ignore statutes and appropriations entirely, Congress is irrelevant.

Many SCOTUS opinions are just reverse-engineering to whatever policy outcome the majority wants. I remember going to law school naively thinking that the justices were paragons of reasoned thinking, but that the more I learned, the more it was clearly just "We hate this administration and its policies" or "We like this administration and its policies" determining an outcome.

Yes, but Roberts likes to pontificate about upholding the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution. So he doesn't want to look entirely like a political hack in this case, but it doesn't bode well that the vote was so close.

It’s a miracle these 2 did the right thing by telling the government to pay its contractually obligated bills for services rendered.

But it’s a small victory.

The reality is NGOs staffed up to implement programs at the request of the government and covered by contracts. While this latest decision says the govt must pay what they already owe, it doesn’t say they must also honor the contracts moving forward.

And that’s a big problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather amazing that there are 4 supreme court justices who do not believe federal contracts should be enforceable.

Replying to myself, these same four Justices held Biden could not use a statute passed by Congress for student debt relief because the statute authorized it but needed to extra double authorize it.

But for Trump, he can simply ignore statutes and appropriations entirely, Congress is irrelevant.

Many SCOTUS opinions are just reverse-engineering to whatever policy outcome the majority wants. I remember going to law school naively thinking that the justices were paragons of reasoned thinking, but that the more I learned, the more it was clearly just "We hate this administration and its policies" or "We like this administration and its policies" determining an outcome.

Yes, but Roberts likes to pontificate about upholding the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution. So he doesn't want to look entirely like a political hack in this case, but it doesn't bode well that the vote was so close.

It’s a miracle these 2 did the right thing by telling the government to pay its contractually obligated bills for services rendered.

But it’s a small victory.

The reality is NGOs staffed up to implement programs at the request of the government and covered by contracts. While this latest decision says the govt must pay what they already owe, it doesn’t say they must also honor the contracts moving forward.

And that’s a big problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather amazing that there are 4 supreme court justices who do not believe federal contracts should be enforceable.

Replying to myself, these same four Justices held Biden could not use a statute passed by Congress for student debt relief because the statute authorized it but needed to extra double authorize it.

But for Trump, he can simply ignore statutes and appropriations entirely, Congress is irrelevant.

Many SCOTUS opinions are just reverse-engineering to whatever policy outcome the majority wants. I remember going to law school naively thinking that the justices were paragons of reasoned thinking, but that the more I learned, the more it was clearly just "We hate this administration and its policies" or "We like this administration and its policies" determining an outcome.

Yes, but Roberts likes to pontificate about upholding the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution. So he doesn't want to look entirely like a political hack in this case, but it doesn't bode well that the vote was so close.