5 ms·

> she ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction to order "retrospective relief", forcing NSF to pay out previously cancelled funds, saying those claims should be

> she ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction to order "retrospective relief", forcing NSF to pay out previously cancelled funds, saying those claims should be brought in the Court of Federal Claims, which handles lawsuits seeking money from the federal government So many times a court ruling will come down similar to this, where the judge, in correctly and impartially analyzing the situation, deems that whatever the plaintiff is seeking cannot be granted due to jurisdiction or some other basically administrative problem, but the mass media reports on in it in a way that makes it seem like it was because they thought the plaintiff “unworthy.”

rayiner 1y ago
The legal system is too complex for your average reporter to understand. They operate at the level of stories rather than systems, rules, allocations of decision making power, etc. I had a civil procedure professor once explain various federal court procedures in terms of the flow of cases through pipelines, and an evidence professor who explained the rules of evidence in terms of Bayesian statistics. But if you’re smart enough to understand that, you can make a lot more money doing something other than being a reporter.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  >But if you’re smart enough to understand that, you can make a lot more money doing something other than being a reporter. And if you're smart enough to convey it to laymen in a useful way you're making money hand over fist doing something better still.
SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
Sometimes I agree, but in other cases a merely administrative problem ends up meaning there's no effective remedy. The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs can't get an injunction against the prospective claims the court does have jurisdiction over. If the government can illegally cancel your grants at any time for any reason, and months of court action isn't enough to get them restored, I think it's fair for a journalist to summarize that as "courts are letting the government break the law without consequence".
jfengel 1y ago
It appears to me that administrative problems can be found any time you want. The court chooses whether or not they are sufficient to matter in this case. As such, it is correct, but not impartial. They can choose their personal opinion and then retroactively find the justification.
- efitz 1y ago
  It is incredibly clear in US Federal law that the ONlY court with jurisdiction in a contract dispute with the federal government is the Court of Federal Claims. literally it would be breaking the law for this judge to adjudicate this case. That’s not judicial bias or finding a way to weasel out (as is done all the time with “standing”). The reason Trump has been winning so much at the Supreme Court is because these lower courts have been breaking all the rules in their efforts to stop him. They keep getting struck down for breaking the rules.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Absolutely not true. Trump hasn't been "winning" at the Supreme Court. The Trump administration has won exactly two cases at SCOTUS, which is Trump vs CASA and United States vs Skrmetti. Every other "positive outcome" from SCOTUS has been the Supreme Court reaching down into lower court decisions and delaying/pausing lower courts' decisions in lieu of the Supreme Court actually hearing and deciding the case. And in a growing number of these cases, there has been zero rationale provided for the reversal. None whatsoever. You cannot possibly make the claim they were for "breaking the rules." In fact, with the (very aberrational) lack of provided rationale, I'd suggest you can infer quite the opposite: SCOTUS's interventions are actually not readily defensible with any cogent legal argument. In other words, you are a victim of the same ignorance discussed at the top of the thread. Trump's wins are not wins, they are SCOTUS using procedural tools to overturn lower decisions without having to hear evidence, consider arguments, or provide decisions themselves.

rayiner 1y ago

The legal system is too complex for your average reporter to understand. They operate at the level of stories rather than systems, rules, allocations of decision making power, etc. I had a civil procedure professor once explain various federal court procedures in terms of the flow of cases through pipelines, and an evidence professor who explained the rules of evidence in terms of Bayesian statistics. But if you’re smart enough to understand that, you can make a lot more money doing something other than being a reporter.

potato3732842 1y ago
>But if you’re smart enough to understand that, you can make a lot more money doing something other than being a reporter. And if you're smart enough to convey it to laymen in a useful way you're making money hand over fist doing something better still.

SpicyLemonZest 1y ago

Sometimes I agree, but in other cases a merely administrative problem ends up meaning there's no effective remedy. The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs can't get an injunction against the prospective claims the court does have jurisdiction over. If the government can illegally cancel your grants at any time for any reason, and months of court action isn't enough to get them restored, I think it's fair for a journalist to summarize that as "courts are letting the government break the law without consequence".

jfengel 1y ago

It appears to me that administrative problems can be found any time you want. The court chooses whether or not they are sufficient to matter in this case. As such, it is correct, but not impartial. They can choose their personal opinion and then retroactively find the justification.

efitz 1y ago
It is incredibly clear in US Federal law that the ONlY court with jurisdiction in a contract dispute with the federal government is the Court of Federal Claims. literally it would be breaking the law for this judge to adjudicate this case. That’s not judicial bias or finding a way to weasel out (as is done all the time with “standing”). The reason Trump has been winning so much at the Supreme Court is because these lower courts have been breaking all the rules in their efforts to stop him. They keep getting struck down for breaking the rules.
- estearum 1y ago
  Absolutely not true. Trump hasn't been "winning" at the Supreme Court. The Trump administration has won exactly two cases at SCOTUS, which is Trump vs CASA and United States vs Skrmetti. Every other "positive outcome" from SCOTUS has been the Supreme Court reaching down into lower court decisions and delaying/pausing lower courts' decisions in lieu of the Supreme Court actually hearing and deciding the case. And in a growing number of these cases, there has been zero rationale provided for the reversal. None whatsoever. You cannot possibly make the claim they were for "breaking the rules." In fact, with the (very aberrational) lack of provided rationale, I'd suggest you can infer quite the opposite: SCOTUS's interventions are actually not readily defensible with any cogent legal argument. In other words, you are a victim of the same ignorance discussed at the top of the thread. Trump's wins are not wins, they are SCOTUS using procedural tools to overturn lower decisions without having to hear evidence, consider arguments, or provide decisions themselves.