Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

unblock

(55,168 posts)

3. My understanding of such rulings is that usually, they seek to preserve options.

Reply to riversedge (Original post)

Fri Mar 28, 2025, 08:07 PM

Mar 28

That is if one choice is easily reversed, but the other choice is hard to reverse, then go with the choice that is easily reversed.

Meaning, in this case, I would think, keep the status quo. You can always dismantle it later. Whereas, dismantling USAid and trying to rebuild it later would be far more difficult and expensive and harmful.

I know another factor is what the court think is the likely ultimate legal outcome, but it seems that unless there's really no question, they should have kept things in place.

Then again, less and less in government is functioning as it should under Donnie....

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

State Department formally notifies Congress it is effectively dissolving USAID [View all] riversedge Mar 28 OP

ILLEGAL........... Lovie777 Mar 28 #1

And what will congress do? Analyze which programs are great for the money? Research the number of wiggs Mar 28 #2

My understanding of such rulings is that usually, they seek to preserve options. unblock Mar 28 #3

Locking as a duplicate Yonnie3 Mar 28 #4