Perhaps I'm a dummy, but isn't "work already performed" (& proven I assume) just basic contract law? How the F can those 4 dissent (I mean, I get it, they barely adhere to written laws any more)?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I guess the concept is that the contractors can file a civil suit against the government. Easily done if you are in the middle of South Sudan, I guess.
Government can’t be sued unless it consents to be sued, usually shown by a statute. DOJ was trying to push this action out by claiming it hasn’t consented to the suit in federal court. The dissenters are ignoring the issue presented, which wasn’t the TRO but the remedy for violating it.
Yeah, orange also argued that the remedy for these plaintiffs is in crappy contract law--claiming that every plaintiff must individually sue for damages.
Breathtaking, both in the original argument and this dissent (totally incoherent).
The dissenters would - no surprise here - tear up hundreds of years of contract law in North America, just to suit their naked emperor.
Such instability will destroy faith in anyone (who isn’t one of their crooks) that the federal government can be trusted. Hire risk means higher prices.
They just repeat Orange Krasnov's "reasoning" for stiffing 3500 contractors who did work for him over the years. Word performed means nothing to those who do not actually work. With Uncle Thomas and A-hole Alito, they do not even bother to engage their brains.
The same legal jujitsu is how they arrived at presidential immunity. Alito in particular is quite adept at starting with outcome he wants and constructing an argument for it.
Comments
Breathtaking, both in the original argument and this dissent (totally incoherent).
The dissenters would - no surprise here - tear up hundreds of years of contract law in North America, just to suit their naked emperor.
Such instability will destroy faith in anyone (who isn’t one of their crooks) that the federal government can be trusted. Hire risk means higher prices.
It ain't political when it's based on facts and evidence.