The ruling concerning the USAID grant by the Supreme Court was Constitutional. They maintained the sanctity of a contract as defined below. I suggest people read the ruling and understand that it applies to a portion of one USAID grant, not all foreign aid. The ruling states that only work done prior to the Trump administration’s freezing of payments was in question. In other words, the work completed before the freeze had to be paid as per the contract.
This ruling was not about an activist judge; it was about the rule of law and the sanctity of a contract. But the interesting part is that the portion of the Constitution for contracts applies to States, not the federal government.
I may not agree with the excessive fraud and criminal acts of the Deep States but in this case, work completed should be paid. If there is any question as to the quality of the work or fraud, that is a separate matter.
What is surprising is how easily our “side” is misled by the twisting of the truth.
David DeGerolamo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Grok:
Referring to the principle of “ex post facto” laws, which is addressed in the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 states:
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
This means that Congress cannot pass a law that makes an act illegal after it has already been committed. In other words, a person cannot be charged with a crime if the law criminalizing that act was enacted after they performed it. This protection applies to the federal government. Additionally, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 extends a similar restriction to the states, saying:
“No State shall… pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”
The term “ex post facto” (Latin for “after the fact”) refers to laws that retroactively change the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the law was enacted. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to primarily apply to criminal laws, ensuring that individuals are protected from being punished for something that wasn’t a crime at the time they did it. This is a foundational safeguard for fairness and due process in the legal system.
Roberts is compromised. Open the Epstein files, AG Pam Bondi. Open the damned files. We need a new SC chief justice and we need one now!
Contacts are broken all the time especially when they are made in bad faith and possible fraud. I guess the idiots in the black robes didn’t get the message last night after Trump read only some of the fraud taken place in the bureaucracy to tune of hundreds of billions, and they surely didn’t get the message when he gave Pam Bondi the NOD to begin investigations of such fraud in social security going to millions of dead people, or should i say going to our democratic leaders in nameless accounts. How many of these judges have been collecting fraud money to go along with the democratic party and anti-American lunacy is sickening. they were warned last night without naming anyone names that if any of them are entangled with the fraud of which I believe are, they will go to prison and thrown off the court in disgrace. we already know some of the names at the lower court levels receiving NGO fraud money to the tune of millions of dollars and some of these Marxist democrat judges are going to be impeached and possibly sent to prison of which they should be. Trumps team needs to rally the republicans in Congress to overturn the SCOTUS ruling due to it as interference in executive branch to govern soundly. In our nation’s history some Scotus rulings have been overturned in Congress on some occasions, and I do remember slightly of one case the court made a hair brain ruling and the congress overturned it.which made there ruling null and void. they have the votes in congress, and they need to send a message to that court the American People will no longer tolerate their bad rulings based on their political feelings and biases.
While I can agree the legal sanctity of contracts should be enforced if the terms were met, it is also true (in a legal sense) that fraud vitiates all contracts. I’m sure if time was taken to properly examine the work product versus the stated purpose of the funds granted, the majority of this activity would be found fraudulent, and we could legally refuse to disburse the funds on that basis But once again, the easy way out is taken. I expect that will continue to be the case until there are no easy outs left, then everyone gets to deal with being forced into solutions that are best described as “the hard way”.
Besides which, in a country where rule of law has been a complete joke for some time now, it’s pretty rich to defend the legal principle of contract enforcement when the benefits of so doing only accrue to the rectal cavities defrauding and bankrupting us. In other words, we have no rule of law until suddenly it conveniently reappears long enough to make sure the bad guys are made whole. And that’s how I view this ruling, as the exception to the established “rule”, in that I’d lay even odds the ruling would’ve been the opposite if it were a different and less favored set of entitites who were having their funding cut off. I don’t believe for a second that this was a principled decision for the justices ruling in the majority. It was one of poltiical convenience.
If a contract is fraudulent, it is not valid. Was the “work” actually completed? Did the SC take that into consideration?
So the usual justices that follow the Constitution, aren’t in this case. And the ones who are typically on the activist side of issues are actually following the law this time around? Interesting.
I see the point, but don’t like it. Nonetheless the elimination of USAID is a huge win.
I’d like to know what 1.9 billion dollars worth of work was completed before receiving the grant for said work…
Well from the work that DOGE has already done, probably safe to assume something nefarious and fraudulent that leads to the demise of our country and makes democrats lots of $$ in the process. Too bad we don’t have more people with enough moral courage to find a way to do what’s right and just.
There was no figure associated with the work that was completed. I feel like we are being misled on several fronts. Price, contracts, appeal process and the authority of judges.
Without a doubt.
I think that there is a much broader point to this the recent SC decision that isn’t being discussed here. We all know that inflation is raging. And we all know that the expenditures and borrowing of the federal government has an enormous influence on the rate of inflation. Trump, to his credit, is trying to cut any and all wasteful and fraudulent spending by the federal government -- exactly what a good president should be doing.
Just who is in charge of determining what is wasteful and fraudulent spending by the federal government? Is it a federal judge, or group of judges, that make that determination, or is it the president -- the CEO of the executive branch of the federal government -- that makes that determination. I think that allowing federal judges to make those decisions is a MAJOR violation of the separation of powers doctrine, between the three branches of the federal government, as defined by the Constitution.
Trump should simply say this to the federal judges: “I will not comply.”
Absolutely, 100% agree.
Strider while really cool to say.
“I will not comply”.
How well would the media play Trump the Dictator and Lawless man, disregarding the courts (insert pious nonsense from media here)?
Trump’s already done a lot of legal legwork in removing the Democrats protection from activist Judges. You know that “Trump Proofing” they bragged about before Trump was sworn in?