SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Amazon wins court injunction on controversial JEDI contract:
[...] Amazon late last year filed suit against the Trump administration over the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) cloud-computing contract. Amazon last month asked the court to grant a temporary injunction halting any JEDI work while the case is pending, and today Judge Patricia Campbell-Smith agreed. Although the existence of the injunction is public, documents relating to the matter are presently sealed.
The JEDI contract is a $10 billion agreement to build a cloud computing and storage platform for use by the entire Department of Defense. Several firms were in the running for the deal, including Oracle and IBM. in April, the DoD dropped the list of finalist candidates to two: Amazon's AWS and Microsoft's Azure. AWS was widely expected to seal the deal, and so industry-watchers were surprised when in October Microsoft nabbed the contract instead.
Amazon filed suit a month later. The company argued that it didn't just lose the contract for ordinary reasons of cost or capability but was instead sabotaged for political reasons. Microsoft's win flowed from "improper pressure from President Donald J. Trump, who launched repeated public and behind-the-scenes attacks to steer the JEDI Contract away from AWS to harm his perceived political enemy—Jeffrey P. Bezos," the lawsuit argued. (Bezos is the founder of Amazon and CEO as well as owner of The Washington Post.)
Previously:
- Pentagon's $10BN Jedi Decision 'Risky for the Country and Democracy,' Says AWS CEO Jassy
- Pentagon Beams Down $10bn JEDI Contract to Microsoft: Windows Giant Beats Off Bezos
- Amazon, Microsoft Wage War Over the Pentagon's "War Cloud"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @03:23AM (1 child)
∀ decisions made by the Trump administration ∃ a democrat judge that will issue an injunction against it until the supreme court throws it out.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday February 17 2020, @05:52PM
Allow me to finish your "proof": '∴ all democrat judges are politically biased'
But you didn't say that, because you know it doesn't follow. You are happy enough to imply it, though.
May I offer a more realistic explanation? Actions taken by the Trump administration tend to be poorly executed, leaving many legal issues that a competent president would sort out so that it wouldn't face an immediate court injunction.
Then, political opponents of the president find what they can to challenge him. In this case, Amazon.
Then the court hears arguments from both sides and determines whether there is merit to the case. If so, injunction pending further determination.
Adversarialism is how American courts are designed to operate. Nobody expects Trump to come up with reasons why Trump might be breaking the law. Trump's opponents are appropriately motivated to make that argument. Then the court determines the truth, based on each sides' best arguments.
The truth is not partisan. The truth is based on the law. The truth is based on facts.
You'd like to believe that judges who oppose Trump do so out of personal bias. You'd like to believe that the correct response is to replace those judges with people that do whatever Trump wants, regardless of the truth. You'd like to believe that's better, because you'd like to believe judges already disregard the truth.
But that's not the reality we live in. Promoting this idea that the courts are politically biased moves us closer to the dystopia in which they are.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?