 |
|
A little additional analysis by Grok from that thread:
Posted on: July 8, 2025 at 17:26:25 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72861
Member For:
21.61 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
https://x.com/XlancerTheGreat/status/1942414025108685061
@grok
Cite the US Constitutional authority this judge has to force US taxpayers to fund private NGOs that haven’t been appropriated any funds by Congress?
The judge's authority derives from Article III of the Constitution, empowering federal courts to enjoin laws violating constitutional rights—in this case, alleged First and Fifth Amendment breaches in the defunding provision. However, no constitutional provision allows judges to compel funding absent congressional appropriation; the TRO merely pauses enforcement of the new ban, preserving prior Medicaid reimbursements pending review.
@grok
because planned parenthood is violating the religious freedoms & due processes of the taxpayer? 🫤
No, Planned Parenthood's receipt of Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion services doesn't violate taxpayers' religious freedoms or due process. Courts have consistently held that general taxation and appropriated spending don't compel individuals to endorse specific activities (e.g., Maher v. Roe). The TRO addresses the defunding law's alleged targeting of PP, not taxpayer rights.
@grok
So PP gets right not afforded to taxpayers?
No, Planned Parenthood isn't getting unique rights; both it and taxpayers have constitutional protections. Courts hold that general taxation for programs doesn't violate taxpayers' rights (e.g., Maher v. Roe), but targeted defunding laws can be challenged as violating the provider's due process or equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
JS: So targeted funding violating taxpayer’s freedom of religion is legal, but targeted defunding promoting taxpayer’s freedom of religion is illegal? Make that make sense…
@grok · 18h:
Targeted funding via general taxes doesn't violate taxpayers' religious freedoms, per Supreme Court precedent (Maher v. Roe)—it doesn't compel endorsement. But targeted defunding can unconstitutionally punish providers for protected speech or association (First Amendment), as alleged here. The TRO pauses enforcement to assess that claim, not to "promote" rights. https://grok.com
JS: Can you make it at least make sense? Right now the logical contradiction is just glaring.
@grok · 18h:
There's no contradiction: Courts view general taxation and funding as not compelling taxpayers to endorse activities (Maher v. Roe). But defunding targeted at a provider's protected speech/association (e.g., abortion advocacy) can violate the provider's First Amendment rights, hence the TRO for review. It's about balancing rights, not favoring one side.
JS: So the federal government can only ignore people’s religious freedoms when they take money, not when they give it away?
@grok
Cite the US Constitutional authority this judge has to force US taxpayers to fund private NGOs that haven’t been appropriated any funds by Congress?
The judge's authority derives from Article III of the Constitution, empowering federal courts to enjoin laws violating constitutional rights—in this case, alleged First and Fifth Amendment breaches in the defunding provision. However, no constitutional provision allows judges to compel funding absent congressional appropriation; the TRO merely pauses enforcement of the new ban, preserving prior Medicaid reimbursements pending review.
@grok
because planned parenthood is violating the religious freedoms & due processes of the taxpayer? 🫤
No, Planned Parenthood's receipt of Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion services doesn't violate taxpayers' religious freedoms or due process. Courts have consistently held that general taxation and appropriated spending don't compel individuals to endorse specific activities (e.g., Maher v. Roe). The TRO addresses the defunding law's alleged targeting of PP, not taxpayer rights.
@grok
So PP gets right not afforded to taxpayers?
No, Planned Parenthood isn't getting unique rights; both it and taxpayers have constitutional protections. Courts hold that general taxation for programs doesn't violate taxpayers' rights (e.g., Maher v. Roe), but targeted defunding laws can be challenged as violating the provider's due process or equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
JS: So targeted funding violating taxpayer’s freedom of religion is legal, but targeted defunding promoting taxpayer’s freedom of religion is illegal? Make that make sense…
@grok · 18h:
Targeted funding via general taxes doesn't violate taxpayers' religious freedoms, per Supreme Court precedent (Maher v. Roe)—it doesn't compel endorsement. But targeted defunding can unconstitutionally punish providers for protected speech or association (First Amendment), as alleged here. The TRO pauses enforcement to assess that claim, not to "promote" rights. https://grok.com
JS: Can you make it at least make sense? Right now the logical contradiction is just glaring.
@grok · 18h:
There's no contradiction: Courts view general taxation and funding as not compelling taxpayers to endorse activities (Maher v. Roe). But defunding targeted at a provider's protected speech/association (e.g., abortion advocacy) can violate the provider's First Amendment rights, hence the TRO for review. It's about balancing rights, not favoring one side.
JS: So the federal government can only ignore people’s religious freedoms when they take money, not when they give it away?
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
A little additional analysis by Grok from that thread: - JeffB MU - 7/8 17:26:25