It would help for the court to be clearer on that, because the way it is worded and the way the lower court faggot activist is pushing it the ruling makes it sound like it wants to force the US Fed to pay for shit they don't want to buy or hire anymore.
Its worse than that, the lower court has
several fatal problems. I'll highlight a few:
1.
Wrong Jurisdiction: You've probably heard of a special Bankruptcy Court or other specialized Court in your state, and its the same principle. In this case, the suit needed to be brought up in the
specific court established by Congress for this issue. Any kind of claims about the government stiffing you on payment or fucking up a contract go to the Federal Court of Claims.
2.
Wrong Structure: The judge in this case issued a TRO, a temporary restraining order that is supposed to
restrain, not compel. (For example, I might get a TRO to stop the city from bulldozing my house while I contest a demolition order. This
restrains the City from knocking down my house, but it doesn't
compel the City to plant me a new rose garden. On interest balancing the city can always knock my house down next week if I'm wrong, but can't unbulldoze my house if I'm right.) In this case the maple syrup sipping camel jockey commie Judge is trying to
compel the State department to make payments. That is an entirely different legal instrument, but the judge wants to use the label of TRO so he can make it unappealable and fast, to steal the money quickly.
3.
Legal Deficiency: Part of the Judge's fuckup, because he's incompetent, is that when he wrote the
TRO he only barred cancellation due to Trump's EO, but kept in place the option to cancel payments/programs
per existing contracts. Guess what, 99.9% of all Fed contracts have explicit language allowing the State Department to end contracts
at their pleasure. So Rubio and his boys sat down, went through the contracts, and individually cancelled the majority of them, in complete legal compliance with the judge's order. Pissed off that he was caught being stupid, the judge then tried to backdoor re-write his original TRO to
force judicial control of all state contracts and make the State Department pay immediately in violation of Federal laws. (Since the State Department
must, by law, perform due diligence to ensure payments aren't fraudulent.) Even for a TRO, this is all highly irregular and absolutely incorrect.
4.
Separation of Powers: The core Constitutional issue here is that a judge, not even a member of the Supreme Court, which
may have some influence as a co-equal branch, is trying to usurp the power of the Executive branch. The President has sole plenary power in this area, and some lower district court judge trying to force the President into
receivership,
where a Congress-created lesser Court controls how the President wields Executive power, is insane. This is the same problem with the DC district Courts trying to control how the President manages hiring and firings in the Executive, as well. If the President has to obtain permission from a District Court Judge to delegate his executive authority and manage his branch of government
then the Judge is effectively the head of the executive branch, and not the democratically elected President.
I believe with all sincerity that the correct response to all these Judicial attempts to seize Executive authority is for Trump to activate the Insurrection Act and throw every one of these judges into the deepest darkest hole at Leavenworth.
As a final remark, I will mention that I usually find Robert Barnes to be a blowhard asshole, but I'll give him credit. Amy Coney Barrett was a huge mistake and I hope that she departs the Court along with the obvious Marxists. God have mercy on us all.
