this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2025
96 points (99.0% liked)

politics

21725 readers
7014 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 against the Trump administration, ordering the U.S. Agency for International Development to pay $2 billion owed to contractors.

The case stemmed from Trump’s dismantling of USAID and freezing of funds, prompting a lawsuit by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.

The ruling, backed by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett with the three liberals, signals resistance to Trump’s executive overreach.

However, a strong dissent from four conservative justices, led by Alito, relied on Trump’s rhetoric in its reasoning. This suggests future legal battles over executive authority may be more contentious.

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

So, four... FOUR supreme court justices think it is okay for the US government to fail to pay it's debts to an AIDS prevention organization for work they had ALREADY DONE!

What the fuck happened to this country?

As a side note, how long before Trump starts calling SCOTUS illigitimate if they keep ruling against him?

[–] Dragomus@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

It's kind of interesting because it directly echos Trump's own thoughts. As personal or his business strategy Trump alwaslys tried to block payment after contracted work was done.

And now part of his supreme court is showing the same tendency, I suspect this will come back again and again untill more justices fall in line and the ruling for non payment of delivered work sticks.

Perhaps at some point Trump or the supreme court declares:

"Doing work for/in name of King Trump is it's own reward, outstanding bills are null and void".

[–] aaron@infosec.pub 6 points 1 week ago

And I guess these four supreme justices think the world should continue to buy US debt lol. You reap what you sow.