In the end, though, it's hard to blame anyone in particular for what happened
I feel like the part that is missing here is that groups can be entitled to government payments at all; unless I'm misunderstanding, the whole premise of this case is that Feed Our Future was able to (successfully) sue because they felt like they were owed government money, and a judge agreed with them.
Like, correct me if I don't have this right, but the sequence of events you laid out appears to be:
Government is giving grants for (charity related purposes).
NGO feels that they can apply to the grant, so does so.
Government says "no".
NGO sues, and judge says "they're owed the grant money".
Why can't the answer just be "the government doesn't owe grant money to anyone?" (And before you tell me its an anti-discrimination effort; like, duh, but I don't doubt that if it had been an obviously right wing group applying, the judge would've found that they were not eligible).
On a related tangent - has anyone else been getting the feeling that a lot of the complaints that are being attributed to the swamp, or the ruling governmental party, or really just anything political are actually problems with the judiciary? I hear a lot of leftists talk about how the supreme court is corrupt and in Trump's pocket; by the same token, a lot of right-wingers mention the ninth(?) circuit court as being unusually corrupt and blocking the right-wing government from accomplishing its goals (sorry, Canadian, I don't actually know the US court system super well). Up here in Canada, we have judges that rule that immigration status modifies a party's guilt (specifically, if you are sentenced to 6 months, it will affect your immigration claim; hence, a lot of judges rule that even severecrimeslikeassault warrant 6 months less a day).
I'm beginning to get the feeling that having a group of individuals, who are appointed for life, paid generously, and who are basically impossible to remove may have been something of a mistake.
p
I feel like the part that is missing here is that groups can be entitled to government payments at all; unless I'm misunderstanding, the whole premise of this case is that Feed Our Future was able to (successfully) sue because they felt like they were owed government money, and a judge agreed with them.
Like, correct me if I don't have this right, but the sequence of events you laid out appears to be:
Why can't the answer just be "the government doesn't owe grant money to anyone?" (And before you tell me its an anti-discrimination effort; like, duh, but I don't doubt that if it had been an obviously right wing group applying, the judge would've found that they were not eligible).
On a related tangent - has anyone else been getting the feeling that a lot of the complaints that are being attributed to the swamp, or the ruling governmental party, or really just anything political are actually problems with the judiciary? I hear a lot of leftists talk about how the supreme court is corrupt and in Trump's pocket; by the same token, a lot of right-wingers mention the ninth(?) circuit court as being unusually corrupt and blocking the right-wing government from accomplishing its goals (sorry, Canadian, I don't actually know the US court system super well). Up here in Canada, we have judges that rule that immigration status modifies a party's guilt (specifically, if you are sentenced to 6 months, it will affect your immigration claim; hence, a lot of judges rule that even severe crimes like assault warrant 6 months less a day).
I'm beginning to get the feeling that having a group of individuals, who are appointed for life, paid generously, and who are basically impossible to remove may have been something of a mistake.
More options
Context Copy link