Whereas the Judge tried to force the issue by issuing a non-appealable TRO, won't his preliminary injunction be appealable by the government? And I always thought TROs are intended to protect the status quo, whereas his TRO is trying to have $2,000,000,000 be paid out never to be recoverable even if it turns out on the merits that it nee…
Whereas the Judge tried to force the issue by issuing a non-appealable TRO, won't his preliminary injunction be appealable by the government? And I always thought TROs are intended to protect the status quo, whereas his TRO is trying to have $2,000,000,000 be paid out never to be recoverable even if it turns out on the merits that it needn't have been paid out. What kind of protecting of the status quo is that?
So, did you not actually read the article you’re commenting on?
This was specifically addressed.
Or maybe you’re just a troll here to push an untrue narrative?
Either way. If you did work under contract for anyone and then didn’t get paid for the work, would that be problematic?
I bet it would.
That’s the root of this case, paying bills for services and goods *already provided.*
But if you’d like the Supreme Court to take a wrecking ball to to the foundations of contract law, I guess you are welcome to foolishly argue that the government doesn’t need to adhere to contracts it has entered into.
If that’s the case, let’s just stop paying Lockheed and other weapons contractors for boondoggle projects they can’t finish on time or on budget. :P
Whereas the Judge tried to force the issue by issuing a non-appealable TRO, won't his preliminary injunction be appealable by the government? And I always thought TROs are intended to protect the status quo, whereas his TRO is trying to have $2,000,000,000 be paid out never to be recoverable even if it turns out on the merits that it needn't have been paid out. What kind of protecting of the status quo is that?
So, did you not actually read the article you’re commenting on?
This was specifically addressed.
Or maybe you’re just a troll here to push an untrue narrative?
Either way. If you did work under contract for anyone and then didn’t get paid for the work, would that be problematic?
I bet it would.
That’s the root of this case, paying bills for services and goods *already provided.*
But if you’d like the Supreme Court to take a wrecking ball to to the foundations of contract law, I guess you are welcome to foolishly argue that the government doesn’t need to adhere to contracts it has entered into.
If that’s the case, let’s just stop paying Lockheed and other weapons contractors for boondoggle projects they can’t finish on time or on budget. :P