WTF is this? I guess those who got money today got lucky.pretty sure a couple states are making supplemental payments from some state funds.
Useless fucking idiot.I'm reminded of that stupid fucking 9-0 decision in the CO disqualification case.
I'm guessing she did this so the Republicans can't just sidestep SNAP while keeping the government shut down. Pretty brutal political pragmatism if so.
Well, I hope that it's effective, but I hope that people can get their food, too.
At least many already got their benefits.
The Trump administration told states that they must immediately undo any actions to provide full food stamp benefits to low-income families, in a move that added to the chaos and uncertainty surrounding the nations largest anti-hunger program during the government shutdown.
The Agriculture Department issued the command in a late-night Saturday memo, viewed later by The New York Times. That guidance threatened to impose financial penalties on states that did not comply quickly with the governments new orders.
Some context I read about this:
Justice Brown strategically made this move. By doing this she is forcing the lower court to rule on this quickly. Otherwise the SC could have let this drag out for months.
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1ortm2r/supreme_court_issues_emergency_order_to_block/
I'm guessing she did this so the Republicans can't just sidestep SNAP while keeping the government shut down. Pretty brutal political pragmatism if so.
I'm sorry, do people here think a single justice has the power to do this herself?
What she did was send it back to the lower courts, IE: a procedural matter. Lower courts mostly filled with judges appointed by Obama and Biden. This gives the case a much better chance at being in favor of those relying on SNAP and forces the courts to explain reasoning.
And this could get the money out faster. She didn't stop SNAP, she's trying to protect it.
Yeah, this very much reminds me of the thread about the Canadian Supreme Court getting rid of mandatory minimums on child porn. It was a reasonable decision but you had to actually read the decision to realize that.
Articles regarding legal decisions are typically terribly written and all about appeal to the emotions of the reader rather than about having the reader get actually informed and understanding about the decisions.
While there's good reason for this being likely that she is keeping it at the lower courts so the conservative justices don't make things worse, let's not pretend that the liberal justices on the SC are all great. Remember they were in unanimous agreement last year that they didn't need additional ethics oversight.
I feel a good rule of thumb is "if this otherwise liberal justice did something that sounds suspect, there's probably a reason behind it."
While there's good reason for this being likely that she is keeping it at the lower courts so the conservative justices don't make things worse, let's not pretend that the liberal justices on the SC are all great. Remember they were in unanimous agreement last year that they didn't need additional ethics oversight.
trump now wants states to payback the benefit that was issued. guess we're back to starving.