See? It's not all about empathy.
Justice Jackson, a member of the court’s three-justice liberal bloc who has spoken forcefully against many of the Trump administration’s policies, issued a decision on the stay because she is responsible for emergency applications from that region of the country. She said in the order that she expected the appeals court to evaluate the matter and issue a more complete ruling swiftly.
Still, many Democrats around the country erupted in anger on Friday night, with some accusing President Trump of trying to turn nutrition assistance — a program on which one in eight Americans rely — into a bargaining chip while the government remains closed.
“Trump fought for this,” Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York, a Democrat, said in a post on social media. “He doesn’t care if millions of Americans go hungry.”
Did Hochul say that before or after Jackson showed she "doesn't care"?
Posts
131 comments:
Justice Jackson didn't block SNAP payments when reserve funds were available; Trump did.
Hochul doesn’t care .. about the facts. The Democrats’ narrative is all she cares about. Jackson will backtrack after she gets hammered by the left.
You know, I wonder if other powerful countries fell because their government became worthless to the residents. Taking a chance on some other government seemed like an idea they might as well try. What they had wasn't working.
We send Congress money under threat of fines and imprisonment. I know a guy who served 90 days in jail because he didn't get around to filing his tax return for a few years in a row.
Then all they do is argue and we pay both sides to do it.
They don't follow their own budget process. They give us the CR-and-midnight omnibus process instead.
The government can't pass an audit because it does not use the accounting principles that business people must follow or go to jail.
I have a developmentally-delayed adult son who gets SNAP benefits. His group home agency uses the money to buy food, not candy and sodas. They must be in a budget crunch right now.
Congress let the government lapse? How crazy that is.
Jackson is a good girl who does what she’s told to do. The relevant questions are who told her and why?
The Court couldn't have had the ruling come from a judge on the conservative side, say Alito ?
Because now the left/the NYT is so conflicted--the ruling completely messes up the narrative that the majority in Court is in the tank for Trump and his cruel and evil agenda.
SC Justice Jackson is allowing the appeals court to rule on a more lasting pause, then the Trump administration can send it back to the SC if the appeals court refuses to halt the order to pay the SNAP benefits. Am I correct?
empowers Trump to continue withholding food money.
The law is withholding food money.
You know, the thing Progressives are always yelling that no one is above? NO KINGS! Yada, yada…
Trump has asked the court for guidance on how he can pay the funds while remaining within the law. KJB just said they’d have to get back to him on that.
"The Court couldn't have had the ruling come from a judge on the conservative side, say Alito ?"
No, it couldn't: "Justice Jackson... issued a decision on the stay because she is responsible for emergency applications from that region of the country."
So, with airports shutting down flights around the country, military working without pay, etc, thanks to the Schumer Shutdown, implemented at least in part to keep SMP/EBT money flowing to Blue States that are illegally paying illegals these benefits, a single federal judge, out of almost a thousand of them, orders the Administration to use contingency funds that they believe that they need elsewhere, such as for school lunches, to continue funding SNAP/EBT for illegals. What other essential DoAg functions would that single, unelected judge’s decision have caused to be curtailed? Meat inspection? Etc?
It’s so wrong. We aren’t in 5-4, or even 6-3 territory, but apparently 9-0 territory, when it comes to district court overreach. I think that it is likely that the lawsuit was filed in the 1st Circuit precisely because Justice Jackson is in charge of emergency appeals for the Circuit. And, yet, they can’t even get the most politically radical Justice to go out on a limb for them.
Ann, yes, I was aware of that.
And when Justice Jackson realized that it would fall in her lap, her first thought was, "Oh Sh*t".
Combining Big Mike, Kevin, and Bruce Hayden's points, Bill Glahn and John Hinderaker at Powerline point out these district court rulings assume Trump has the Constitutional power to fund (open) whatever government agencies he wishes with money conjured out of thin air. Both encourage him to go for it and simply ignore the need for a CR. I suspect they aren't the only ones who see the direction these rulings are going, and somebody smarter than KBJ told her to issue the stay. Because you know if the Democrats thought the opposite ruling made them look better she would have done that instead.
Bruce, they found a way to pay 70,000 CBP agents during the shutdown, despite the proprr appropriations not being available.
Clearly there are choices being made what to fund. Food aid for the disabled and elderly are being chosen to lapse.
After Trump, as he has with every stupid order every rogue judge has issued, COMPLIED and funded SNAP with funds from God knows where. Yes Trump is so lawless he even complies with unconstitutional orders to spend money Congress has refused to allocate.
We now have examples this year of Trump complying with orders to stop spending and orders to pay money he is not allowed to spend. With Democrats opposing both and they still claim that Trump is an authoritarian dictator, albeit one that can be pushed around by any of 700 or so pissant district judge at any time.
Democrats explicitly said that SNAP recipients were their “leverage” to end the shutdown and get their way on Obamacare. But if judges can give magical powers to Trump to pay “money” from a Treasury with a deficit (as in below zero balance) and idiots like Mark cheer it on the “shutdown” will never end.
The whole reason we have run on one CR after another is because Congress has been incapable of doing a budget for decades. We are Trillions in the hole. The CR just allocated pretend money to meet our “budget” as a technicality that allows Congress to, temporarily, to pretend to operate normally.
If any old judge can wish funds into being who even needs a stupid Congress anyway!
Congrats lefties you have so many stupid judges you just created a de facto dictator by fiat. Helluva job dummies!
“Bruce, they found a way to pay 70,000 CBP agents during the shutdown, despite the proprr appropriations not being available.”
Besides there not being anything close to 70,000 CBP agents, It’s a different department, with different funding, and different rules.
Is it now simply a matter of opinion whether the government is running a deficit? Or are there really that many people who just don’t know?
’And when Justice Jackson realized that it would fall in her lap, her first thought was, "Oh Sh*t".’
It’s almost too delicious to contemplate. Although if Ketanji heartlessly withheld your food stamps, please disregard the word ‘delicious’ in the previous sentence.
I’m here in LA and there are no food riots.
Justice Jackson’s ruling is temporary, she’s giving it 48 hours, allowing the appeals court to make a permanent decision on the matter.
The Trump administration ought to be arguing to the courts that they ought to order Congress to appropriate the funds. That's Congress' job, then the president can spend the money. Completely avoids the court ordering an unconstitutional act.
Of course, there's the little issue of separation of powers but that doesn't seem to be an issue with courts telling the president what to do or substituting their judgment for his.
@Dave Begley. It's LA, they must at least be practicing chanting 'Soylent Green' is people!' by this point, right?
So what? The SNAP program was funded already before sleepy Roberts got his shit together. Now that we have magical judge budgeting which way back to our Constitutional Republic?
At least Congress has now written to Roberts asking him to do his fucking job and discipline these rogue courts that continue to issue universal injunctions after he said not to in his very polite way. They are mocking him and our Constitutional order.
FWIW, some of the states were relying on the Feds to deliver and told their EBT computer programmers to turn back on the food aid. Minnesota put the full November funds on the cards last night, the MN Snap/EBT website says...
Whether Trump "cares" or not is irrelevant. Focusing on that gives away the game that this is about looking like a good person, not actually helping people. Empathy is dangerous because it can cause you to root for any side if the propaganda is presented to you manipulatively.
The most embarrassing part of the hearing was when Ketanji said she couldn’t define ‘food stamps’ because she’s not a farmer.
We’re actually in the midst of an obesity epidemic.
Bruce, they directly state over 60,000 employees and thats before the recent hiring spree.
https://www.cbp.gov/about
@Mark. But how many of those 60000 are actually agents? The rest do not get paid
The simple solution is for Congress to appropriate funds to cover SNAP payments. A majority in the House has approved such appropriations and a majority in the Senate wants to approve payments. Democrats don’t want to approve the payments.
This tells me that Democrats are losing the argument, and they think they can win by causing more pain and hardship. Using the courts like this anti-democratic and authoritarian, but Democrats can’t win Democratically, because the majority has already decided to appropriate the funds. Arguments like botfly’s at the top would only make sense if Trump was refusing to sign the budget or CR. The reality is Democrats are not giving him a budget or CR.
Are we at crisis stage yet?
That is the entire purpose of the Schumer shutdown.
Dems really really need a crisis.
Didn’t expect that leftists would be demanding Trump write hot checks to cover SNAP while other lefties demand Trump undo their Obamacare fuckup while they hold SNAP recipients hostage but here we are in Contradictionville.
Wisconsin residents were awarded their full November benefits too, ann.
Don't make this political.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
Didn’t expect that leftists would be demanding Trump write hot checks to cover SNAP while other lefties demand Trump undo their Obamacare fuckup while they hold SNAP recipients hostage but here we are in Contradictionville.
You should expect stupidity from democrat voters by now.
Democrats are making the demands. Not the R's.
Democraps are holding our nation hostage.
Not the R's.
Democrats are going to die on ObamaCare for people 400% above the poverty line, hill- and free healthcare for illegals.
I just reread the headline and realized it is another full reversal of reality. The court did not empower Trump to withhold money, they told him he was not allowed to spend it. The only reason he does not want to spend it is because doing so is illegal, not because people will go hungry. Pravda circa 1960 would be proud of the Times.
Their lips are moving
Just imagine what the effect would be, if every breathless news story about SNAP funding and hungry people during a government shutdown, was obliged to include the fact that government is routinely kept running with Continuing Resolutions, that one has been prepared, passed by the House, and is on the table in the Senate. And that it does nothing more than open government so that it can continue routine business - like funding SNAP - and that said resolution has been voted on 15 times now, with Democrats being solidly against it, each time.
Trump is being set up as a straw man, portrayed as if he is empowered to withhold funding, and is doing so out of spite. Are the Republicans being vociferous enough to refute that effectively?
"empowers Trump to continue withholding food money."
I thought the issue was there isn't any money.
Maynard said...
Are we at crisis stage yet?
That is the entire purpose of the Schumer shutdown.
Dems really really need a crisis.
------------
Withhold / delay Social Security payments...
Use the boomers as pawns.
Another old lawyer said..."The Trump administration ought to be arguing to the courts that they ought to order Congress to appropriate the funds."
This seems correct to me. How can the court order Trump to produce something that doesn't exist?
How can the court order Trump to produce something that doesn't exist?
----------
Lol. The money is there...
If we have billions to send in weapons packages to Israel to kill children, we can afford to feed the American people here at home.
Plus, we're raising taxes on all of you "shareholders" whose artificial income has inflated the cost of living for real workers. Wait and see.
Bona Fides v. Bon Appetit
Even if poor Americans are starving, they should at least take some comfort from the fact that the Supreme Court justices who are allowing them to starve have very impressive, academic credentials.
Think it through; if the order had been allowed to stand, that Trump must fully fund SNAP despite the absence of fully congressionally appropriated funds, this exact same logic would then apply to every other program that is shut down because the continuing resolution has not been passed. Trump could simply reopen the government and bypass Congress' power of the purse because the money is actually there- tax revenue continues to be collected and all that is missing is Congressional authority to spend it- it was that power that the district court order was usurping and I strongly suspect this is why the Administration was so willing to comply- it puts the Democrats in Congress and the courts in a kind of no win situation where they would be forced to explain why some programs need congressional appropriations and some don't. Brown saved them from this trap for the moment.
There currently is NO SNAP.
SNAP is defunct, unfounded, DOA. We’re all playing pretend here, that this is merely a pause in government spending, but it’s more than that.
Congress has not authorized SNAP, has not allocated funds to SNAP. There IS NO SNAP. For a federal judge to then order the President to disperse funds outside of Congressional authorization, outside of Congressional allocation, is making shit up.
Congress could, today, pass a budget (not the stalled CR) and eliminate SNAP entirely, and the judge would have ordered funds nonexistent to be spent OUTSIDE CONGRESSIONAL VIEW.
HOW is anyone finding this acceptable by the courts?
It is an impressive feat of propaganda we are witnessing. The democrats literally, completely shut down the government at least 15 times and counting now. But since the democrats and the media lied for 8 straight years about Russia, covid, Biden they no longer are tied down to any truth. It is an impressive and very scary demonstration.
On a more serious note: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson threaded the needle, thanks to the First Circuit’s unfinished business.
• If she had denied the administrative stay, the full Court would have overridden her.
• If she had immediately referred the case to the full Court, they could have dragged their feet.
Instead, she boxed them in: once she refers the case, they’ll have to act quickly.
’Instead, she boxed them in…’
Or perhaps she passed 8th grade civics.
HOW is anyone finding this acceptable by the courts?
Some people find being dishonest acceptable, if gains them power. They don't care how they achieve power and who gets hurt. That's probably why these are the same people cool with assassinating dissent and wearing Nazi tattoos.
Also, consider this- if the order to spend funds Congress hasn't appropriated stands, what would then prevent the Democrats from going to court to order the Administration to spend money on the cancelled Obamacare subsidies or all the other items the Democrats are demanding get restored in order to pass this temporary CR? There is no difference in a court ordering the executive branch to spend inproperly appropriated funds for SNAP versus ordering the executive branch to spend funds on programs cancelled by Congress itself- in both case funds weren't appropriated.
If this question ends up before SCOTUS- whether a district court can order the spending of improperly appropriated funds, the decision is going to be 9-0.
Justice Jackson’s decision to issue this stay is actually standard and unremarkable—exactly the sort of routine order any single justice can grant.
Most people won’t see it that way, and for three good reasons:
1. Real people will suffer, even from a short delay.
2. The government’s argument is transparently dishonest and argued in bad faith.
3. The Supreme Court has squandered the public’s trust; it no longer carries the moral authority of the rule of law.
I suspect Justice Jackson chose this path precisely because a single-justice stay will expire faster than one referred to the full Court. Few will credit that explanation, though—reasons 1–3 drown it out—and I can’t blame them.
YW writes: "If this question ends up before SCOTUS- whether a district court can order the spending of improperly appropriated funds, the decision is going to be 9-0."
The strategy, as I understand it, is that a stay gets the matter considered and thus overturned more quickly, likely over the weekend.
To Yancy's point -- it may take a very long time to get back, at which point the benefits will have already been sent and hopefully the shutdown ended, rendering the whole thing moot.
Ironically, Democrats are wielding a machete, where a scalpel would be sufficient to relieve their burden.
👆Yes but have you ever played Calvinball?
I did once, but the rules were different....
“Bruce, they directly state over 60,000 employees and thats before the recent hiring spree.”
That’s called goal post moving. Federal “agents” are sworn law enforcement officers, typically trained at FLETC, which has the goal of “onboarding of 10,000 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) personnel and 1,000 ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) personnel by December 31, 2025” (fletc.gov).
The critical distinction here is between “agents” and “employees” . The former are sworn LEOs, primarily FLETC trained in DHS. The latter includes secretaries, receptionists, janitors, payroll clerks, computer programmers and operators, etc.
Wow, Bich, that is an amazing display of intellectual contortion.
The government's argument is that Congress hasn't appropriated the funds to fully fund SNAP for November- they are asking the district court judge to write an opinion explaining how they can legally do this. They are ethically required to make this argument before the court- to have done otherwise leads down unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional power. Even the Democrats on SCOTUS recognize the government's argument here is not only valid but the only legally reasoned one before the court. However, the order isn't stayed or overturned, Trump will happily use the existence of this order to pay the air traffic controllers, border patrol, the military etc.
"2. The government’s argument is transparently dishonest and argued in bad faith."
What argument is that? That spending must be approved by Congress?
Trump affirms that he is no king, and the royal court brays in dissent. Throw another baby on the barbie, it's done.
“The simple solution is for Congress to appropriate funds to cover SNAP payments. A majority in the House has approved such appropriations and a majority in the Senate wants to approve payments. Democrats don’t want to approve the payments.”
The sticking point is, apparently, SNAP, MedicAid, etc funding for illegals. There is no funding for illegals in the Continuing Resolution. Schumer and most of the Senate Dems are holding the federal government hostage by demanding that funding for illegals be added in. The bulk of states are fine with this. But this is going to further bankrupt several large Deep Blue states (notably Schumer’s NY) because of their insistence to continue providing welfare to illegals, and their insistence that the rest of us fund it.
The ripple effects are terrifying: https://x.com/defiantls/status/1987143069666316311?s=42
The richest nation in the world needs to borrow money and feed one in eight of its people. Does that sound reasonable?
154 million file federal tax returns. Only 81 million actually pay federal taxes. The rest only file to get credits. So 81 million pay the taxes for 331 million. Only about half of the 81 million pay more than they take out of the system. So 41 million pay the taxes for 331 million. The average net tax payer pays the tax burden of 8 people.
"The simple solution is for Congress to appropriate funds to cover SNAP payments. A majority in the House has approved such appropriations and a majority in the Senate wants to approve payments. Democrats don’t want to approve the payments.”
The House has passed a bill that just funds SNAP?
Or are you referring to the CR, Leland?
The House should pass a bill that just funds SNAP and air traffic controllers.
Democrats emphatically embrace Diversity, Equivocation, and Indifference in pursuit of capital and control through redistributive change schemes. Empathize. Sympathize. Synthesize.
Democrats want to gerrymander democrscy and extract capital through redistributive change schemes to fund their DREAMs. They are willing to sacrifice some civil benefits and lives for their common cause. That said, can they abort the fetus, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her; too? Maybe, baby.
Or are you referring to the CR, Leland?
The CR will do. I wouldn't mind passing the GOP budget rather than the CR, since we did have an election and democracy demands that the majority be able to enact their agenda. But authoritarians are going to do what they do.
Everyone should be outraged at the arrogance and never of one district judge taking over the duties of the POTUS and decided what should be cut and not cut during a Government shutdown.
And thinking, why do we allow this crazy system whereby district judges (700 of them) can do almost anything?
Oh well, thank God one of those other, less power mad, less leftwing, Judges saved us. This time.
How many illegals and "Sainted immigrants" are on SNAP? What could be more insane then importing poor people so you can give them Government benefits? Funny how all the losertarians will go on and on about "Them thaar lazy poor people" while saying zero about our importing millions and millions of undereducated people who eventually end up getting tax dollars.
And Schumer and the Senate D's filibustered a bill to give people SNAP benefits during the shutdown. Just like they filibustered the bill to give Military men pay during the shutdown. Or aircraft controllers.
Schumer and the Senate Democrats are causing all this. But of course, republicans and the conservative media are too stupid to emphasis this and re-emphasis this. The should constantly talking about Schumer and making him the face of the shutdown, but y'know.. pick a target, freeze it, attack it.
But who cares about them thar words...why its stupid gubmint.
"What argument is that? That spending must be approved by Congress?"
The Trump administration does not need a court order to release November SNAP benefits; it could simply choose to do so. If it did, the entire emergency would vanish.
Let’s keep the real causes in view:
• The Friday-night panic stemmed from an artificial deadline imposed by lower courts.
• The deeper crisis, however, was created first by a Republican-controlled Congress that shut down the government, and second by Trump who did not exhaust every option to keep SNAP funds flowing during the shutdown.
Don’t let the trees obscure the forest.
The best way to prevent future emergency appeals in your Circuit is to deny the first one, against the betting odds from those ‘in the know’ who see you as a soft touch. Actually, pretty savvy.
All it took was a government shutdown to get Trump to move closer to a single payer universal health care system.
I am recommending to Senate Republicans that the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars currently being sent to money sucking Insurance Companies in order to save the bad Healthcare provided by ObamaCare, BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, HEALTHCARE, and have money left over. In other words, take from the BIG, BAD Insurance Companies, give it to the people, and terminate, per Dollar spent, the worst Healthcare anywhere in the World, ObamaCare. Unrelated, we must still terminate the Filibuster! ~ Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
"The Trump administration does not need a court order to release November SNAP benefits; it could simply choose to do so. If it did, the entire emergency would vanish."
My understanding is that they already released the emergency funds, that it was not enough to fund to 100%, but that the court was ordering them to pay 100% anyway.
Is this wrong?
"The CR will do."
Of course it will, but dems won't pass it.
So maybe the House should pass a "fund SNAP and only SNAP" bill and hand it to the Senate.
The Democrats all voted against continuing the budget they themselves passed under Biden so they can use the poor as hostages to increase spending that most Americans do not support. Just like any hostage situation, they want to force people to do something they would never do without the threat against the hostages. This is neither a tree nor a forest. It's simply extortion.
This right here is what Bich does on this site relentlessly:
"The Trump administration does not need a court order to release November SNAP benefits; it could simply choose to do so. If it did, the entire emergency would vanish."
That is dishonesty at a ridiculous level. The entirety of the Department of Agriculture's emergency funds amount to less than the total money that SNAP would have spent in November. Given that and a court order to release the entirety of the D of A's emergency funds to SNAP alone, the Trump Administration basically agreed to the distribution order but that wasn't enough for the Democrats suing in court- they wanted SNAP fully funded in November- the Administration had no choice but to challenge such an order because it explicitly mandated the use of funds not appropriated by Congress for that purpose. Using Bich's lying arguments, Trump doesn't need a court order to pay the military, the border patrol, or any of the programs and government employees he wants to fund. This is precisely why Brown issued the stay- even she knows the government's position must prevail in this case.
Democrats are holding Americans hostage. Should Republicans negotiate? No. There are food banks that provide supplemental nutrition programs through charitable services.
And, of course, Bich continues write the lie that is is the GOP that has shut down the government- the government would be open today, SNAP would be being paid if all that happened was that the Democrats would stop filibustering the CR. That CR is clean- it continues those portions of the budget spending passed under Joe Biden minus the items that Congress removed in reconciliation last Summer.
I really don’t understand the issue raised in the suit, are the two district judges saying that it is unconstitutional for Congress to not pay for free food? Or is it that when Congress makes an emergency fund, it is unconstitutional not to pay that fund out for one specific program and not other programs like the air traffic system?
Kakistocracy said...
"What argument is that? That spending must be approved by Congress?"
The Trump administration does not need a court order to release November SNAP benefits; it could simply choose to do so. If it did, the entire emergency would vanish.
Sometimes I am shocked at just how absolutely fucking stupid democrats are.
Democrats: “Let’s reopen the government today, extend the health-insurance subsidies for one year, and then let voters decide in the midterms whether to keep or cancel them.”
Republicans said no.
Bich, Democrats can reopen the government and get a vote on the ACA in a separate vote- Thune has offered this. The Democrats said no.
Well, one can apply the NYT/Brooks shtick about imagining what's in Justice Jackson's brain, or perhaps Gov. Hochul's. For Jackson, it's pretty clearly the wildly unconstitutional nature of the lower courts' ruling -- ordering the Executive to spend funds not appropriated by Congress. The fact that Congress hasn't appropriated any money to run the gov't is what "shutdown" means in this context. For Hochul, whatever is in her brain seems to produce just the usual talking points, nothing original or likely to persuade anyone, just so much silly rhetoric.
Republicans: "Release the hostages and we will let you go free."
Democrats: "No- give us the money we demanded and we will release hostages and go free."
Bich: "Republicans refuse to let Democrats release the hostages."
It’s possible, however unlikely, that even Jackson recognized both the unconstitutionality and the bias of the District Court order and concluded that the modicum of credibility she has necessitated this ruling.
"It’s possible, however unlikely, that even Jackson recognized both the unconstitutionality and the bias of the District Court order and concluded that the modicum of credibility she has necessitated this ruling."
This is exactly why she issued the stay- she knows the full court will, if they ever are asked to rule, will rule against the district judge's order and that if she doesn't issue the stay, SCOTUS will be forced to take up the issue almost immediately- probably 10 minutes later. She is giving the lower courts the chance to do their actual job correctly here. I already know the district judge is fully committed to this course of action but the 1st appellate might have trouble even coming up with two judges to affirm the district court judge's order. It is an egg waiting to hit some leftist's face.
Perhaps Rich can tell us why the court is ordering Trump to spend non-existent money instead of ordering Congress to provide the money.
Jackson is worried that a SNAP judgment will have a boomerang effect. Case-in-point: political congruence ("="), Twilight Fringe, DEIsm, etc.
"There are food banks that provide supplemental nutrition programs through charitable services."
It's not about food. It's the money that gets loaded on those EBT cards.
It's not about food. It's the money that gets loaded on those EBT cards.
Thus the entertaining jesters parading in protest. The very same model of a strutting poor player on tariffs, Green deals, human rites, etc.
Mengele dreams, too, and so on and so forth.
Next, this District Judge will order Congress to reopen the government or to appropriate SNAP funds. Wait! What? That would violate “separation of powers”? Oh.
If they want to extend ACA subsidies they can make the case and vote on that without torturing the hostages, but they think the torturing is working for them, so suck it up poor people.
Who benefits from having more poor on the public dole?
1st) those getting the money
2nd) those getting their votes
Snap benefits should be truly for those in need
Apparently Trump is trying to save school lunches by keeping the USDA fund intact so that it could be used for that purpose if the Dems continue the shutdown. But suppose school lunches are stopped so as to fund SNAP? Ultimately, this is what a judge is trying to require. But then people will really be up in arms - including many SNAP people who have children in school who are getting a good meal at lunch.
"nutrition assistance".
"The richest nation in the world needs to borrow money and feed one in eight of its people. Does that sound reasonable?"
No.
You know what I'm finding rather delicious about the whole affair? After nearly 40 days of No Federal Government, the difference in services rendered is barely noticeable - a few Federal institutions shuttered temporarily and some relatively minor travel inconvenience to those flying. And no free food. I wonder if pretty soon a balance of public sentiment will tip, and people will start to wonder whether re-opening government at all is something we should take a keener interest in, the outrageous expense of it all, for what is not noticeable. I wonder if that will motivate the Senators to vote for a Continuing Resolution.
No decision from 7th Circuit yet
Thinking it was planning to when denied administrative stay, but using Jackson's stay to refine decision.
Why the surliness over SNAP. Lots of people didn’t get a break in life and need help. I hated paying taxes but never had an issue with things like SNAP. I was struggling after grad school and had only $2.50 to last a week until my next paycheck after my wallet was stolen. That week sucked and going hungry isn’t a fucking joke.
Democrats need to give up human rites, Diversity (e.g. racism), Equivocation, and Indifference (DEI), Mengele Dreams, and redistributive change schemes, and pass the continuing resolution and a budget without delay.
Food banks offer a supplemental nutrition assistance program in a pinch.
But then people will really be up in arms - including many SNAP people who have children
-----------
No, it's the angry people with guns who are always up in arms about something. Not people on SNAP. Truth. If you're on SNAP, you already accept you take what you're given... or not.
None of this shit would matter if the Senate Ds simply voted for the same CR they passed back in March.
Original Mike said...
Perhaps Rich can tell us why the court is ordering Trump to spend non-existent money instead of ordering Congress to provide the money.
----------------
That's what I don't understand...
All the allegedly "good" Americans... all the alleged Christians. So few spoke out against the killing/targeting of women and children in Gaza to grow greater Israel. DECADES of nobody confronting the religious settlers intent on stealing land way over the borders of the original gifted lands to Israel, or those legitimately "won" in wartime. Just blatantly stealing contested land.
The evangelical freaks believe God wants Israel united for End Times.
But what of the rest of you? The educated Christians? You let it happen. Of course the Palestinian people fought back as best they could... they wanted justice for the crimes against them and THEIR country/lands.
Now, after the Bush Cheney wars, and the Obama wars in the Middle East under Sec. of State Clinton... the Muslim refugees are here (connect the dots) and of course, all those wars were to help Israel survive in the region by conquering their neighbors... They seized the Golan Heights.
You stayed silent. We robbed America to kill innocent kids. Now the kids here at home, some of them, are hungry. Workers too. People who tried to play by the rules...
Either we jack up taxes, turn off Social Security for GenX and become a caste country, or we vote out the people allegedly in power who did this. Justice will be done. I believe God rewards the good people. I'm saddened so many of you chose to sell out our country for... your religious fantasies? Feelings of guilt toward Jews? I don't get it.
"Why the surliness over SNAP."
It might have something to do with the fact that one person out of every eight is drawing those benefits. That seems like a lot to me.
Oh, yeah- one more thing. Plenty of people are not pleased that they're being taxed to feed people who are in the country illegally. Maybe if those people are sent home, taxpayers might feel a little more charitable towards those getting the benefits, you think?
It might have something to do with the fact that one person out of every eight is drawing those benefits. That seems like a lot to me.
-----------
Let's take better care of our workers than our shareholders. And stop hiring illegal labor...
I don't think those of you who eat out, order online and have everything delivered, and hire Spanish roofers, siders etc. know how much your costs are being subsidized by illegal labor. Just because you can't see them (and doing your lawns and up on your roofs you don't?) doesn't mean you are not benefitting. Uber much? Your children are benefitting, especially if they live in the cities...
The time to "do something!" was decades ago when they started coming in... Now, their children are citizens and they are the workers who keep things running. Not everybody can work from home and be an influencer.
Let's be fair here, to KJB:
I'm morally certain she was told that either she could issue an Administrative stay, or else there were at least 5 votes for a permanent stay until SCOTUS decides.
Because the idea that some District Court judge can order the President to rob the school lunch money budget to pay SNAP is insane.
So she kicked this back to the 1st Circuit, told them to get off their asses and make a ruling, and let them know that ruling against Trump would just guarantee that SCOTUS will rule FOR Trump
gadfly said...
Justice Jackson didn't block SNAP payments when reserve funds were available; Trump did.
Senate Democrats are blocking SNAP by filibustering the CR.
If you have a problem with SNAP not being funded, tell the Senate Dems to end their filibuster. Because that is where 100% of the responsibility lies
Mark said...
Clearly there are choices being made what to fund.
Yes, they're being made by the President who is legally empowered to make them.
NOT by some District Court "judge".
If you don't like the decisions Trump is making, there's an easy way to fix this: Senate Dems can stop filibustering the CR, and it can all be funded.
Attack the people who are actually at fault, Mark.
I still don't know precisely how it worked but here in Oregon the SNAP benefit was, unexpectedly, in my account Friday morning (two days late, in my case). I figure that if they can transfer funds in, they can transfer them back out so will hold off on spending any of it until it proves to be legitimate; who knows what nonsense the Democrats in Salem have been up to.
Inga said...
Justice Jackson’s ruling is temporary, she’s giving it 48 hours, allowing the appeals court to make a permanent decision on the matter.
No, dummy, she's Administratively stayed the order until 48 hours AFTER the 1st Circus, I mean Circuit, finally does something.
Which means if they don't stay the moronic order, SCOTUS will have 48 hours to write up their permanent stay
Kakistocracy said...
Instead, she boxed them in: once she refers the case, they’ll have to act quickly.
And it will take them about 2 minutes to write up:
The orders by the District Court judge are stayed until SCOTUS has ruled on teh underlying case
Which is what they will write if the idiots on the 1st Circus, um Circuit, don't stay the DC "judges''" orders
Kakistocracy said...
The Trump administration does not need a court order to release November SNAP benefits; it could simply choose to do so. If it did, the entire emergency would vanish.
It's so funny when the same lunatics braying "No Kings!" demand that Trump act like a King and ignore the law to spend $$$ Congress hasn't appropriated.
Kak, 6 Democrat Senators could simply decide to stop holding America hostage, and end the CR filibuster.
Until that happens, SNAP isn't funded
Lawnerd said...
Why the surliness over SNAP. Lots of people didn’t get a break in life and need help.
1 in 8 people in America are getting SNAP. That's indicative that
1: There's a lot of fraud
2: There are illegal aliens getting it
I firmly object to both
Leftists are so Pro-Choice. There is more at stake by denying a resolution. Lose your religion. Stop sacrificing people for progress and liberal license.
This morning CBS News radio reported that some of those dependent on SNAP have mentioned they’re having trouble feeding their pets, FFS.
People on welfare don't vote Republican. What sort of leverage does Schumer think he's getting from this?
Marc in Eugene, I know I am a bit fuzzy on the details but my impression was the USDA attempted to comply with the first order to fund SNAP by disbursing as much money as could be made available without undue jeopardy to reserve funds, and this is a second order that demanded payment of 100% of benefits even though using the balance of the existing appropriated reserve fund isn't sufficient to do that, let alone provide even partial funding for other programs if the Democrats continue their filibuster.
What I find interesting is that the Trump Administration seems to be bending over backwards to comply with the orders of these activist judges. So far, they really haven’t violated their orders, no matter how ridiculous, except in extreme circumstances (like when the judge ordered the head of a multistate district to report to him personally, on a daily basis).
The Dems, of course, accuse Trump and his Administration to be lawless, when, of course, they are the ones who are. But then they accuse Republicans of starving people with their feudal to budge on food stamps, when they are the ones causing the situation (esp since this is a Continuing Resolution, meaning that they are, essentially, holding up the government in order, presumably, to increase SNAP benefits).
Still, it seems that Trump and his Administration are bending over backwards, in this regards. My sense is that reluctance to actually confront the activist LawFare judges and lawyers is political. They are being political here.
Progressives fought to replace private religious organization-based charities with Big Government. Local churches could probably still do the job better than a government that can be shut down by a tiny minority hell bent on starving its citizens in order to give free healthcare to criminal illegal aliens.
"I know I am a bit fuzzy on the details but my impression was..." Maybe 'a bit fuzzy', but you're far more on top of these things than I am.
So KJB's gamble paid off.
She did an Administrative stay long enough for Senate Dems to end their shutdown and get SNAP funding going again, making the case now moot.
So we don't have a ruling for SCOTUS on the rocket docket that "of course you can't order this"
Turns out I was wrong.
The 1st Circuit panel doubled down on stupid, and the whole court (over Jackson's strong objection) stayed them until Thursday at 11:59 PM, after which SCOTUS will toss everything into the trash because Congress will have funded SNAP by then.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111125zr_3204.pdf
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.