3 ms·

U.S. Supreme Court allows Trump admin to avoid funding SNAP payments for now

14 points by colinprince 1y ago

duxup 1y ago
[flagged]
WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
Before stacking supreme court, the 45th PotUS has worst record in nearly a century: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/trump-administration-had-worst-supreme-court-record-since-at-least-fdr-years-study-says https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/trump-administration... Conversely, today's stacked SCotUS has been gifting an unprecedented 90% win rate. Equally unprecedented has been the court's refusal to explain rulings and the impossibly short deliberation periods. : https://www.courtaccountability.org/shadow-docket-analysis https://www.courtaccountability.org/shadow-docket-analysis
- smallerize 1y ago
  That's a little less relevant since this was from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
  - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
    It's context like no other in our history; it transcends bias and ideology. A 90% acquiescence rate is so foundationally unhealthy, I argue that all decisions being made in the shade of it - should be considered with it in mind.
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    There's more to it than that, apparently. I'm unclear on the details, but it's not as simple as saying she supports what Trump is trying to do.
  - deeg 1y ago
    Here's one possible (probable?) explanation for Brown's reasoning. Tl;Dr is she's trying to put pressure on the 6 gop judges to respond quickly. https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf
ungreased0675 1y ago
Perhaps Congress could fund SNAP payments by passing a budget.
- SlightlyLeftPad 1y ago
  There was never any intention to do that.
- deeg 1y ago
  My understanding is that Snap is already funded. That's why the lower court ruled that it must be paid.
antibull 1y ago
[dead]
SilverElfin 1y ago
This is an administrative stay. Because the administration says it has the means to only partially fund the program (due to the shutdown), this got kicked back to the lower courts to consider if partial funding was sufficient for them to consider the matter closed. If not, it’ll ultimately be appealed back to this court again. But right now, all they’re doing is saying “hey things have changed since you issued your order, re-rule on this case”.

14 points by colinprince 1y ago

[flagged]

Before stacking supreme court, the 45th PotUS has worst record in nearly a century: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/trump-administration-had-worst-supreme-court-record-since-at-least-fdr-years-study-says https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/trump-administration... Conversely, today's stacked SCotUS has been gifting an unprecedented 90% win rate. Equally unprecedented has been the court's refusal to explain rulings and the impossibly short deliberation periods. : https://www.courtaccountability.org/shadow-docket-analysis https://www.courtaccountability.org/shadow-docket-analysis

smallerize 1y ago
That's a little less relevant since this was from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  It's context like no other in our history; it transcends bias and ideology. A 90% acquiescence rate is so foundationally unhealthy, I argue that all decisions being made in the shade of it - should be considered with it in mind.
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  There's more to it than that, apparently. I'm unclear on the details, but it's not as simple as saying she supports what Trump is trying to do.
- deeg 1y ago
  Here's one possible (probable?) explanation for Brown's reasoning. Tl;Dr is she's trying to put pressure on the 6 gop judges to respond quickly. https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf

ungreased0675 1y ago

Perhaps Congress could fund SNAP payments by passing a budget.

SlightlyLeftPad 1y ago
There was never any intention to do that.
deeg 1y ago
My understanding is that Snap is already funded. That's why the lower court ruled that it must be paid.

antibull 1y ago

[dead]

SilverElfin 1y ago

This is an administrative stay. Because the administration says it has the means to only partially fund the program (due to the shutdown), this got kicked back to the lower courts to consider if partial funding was sufficient for them to consider the matter closed. If not, it’ll ultimately be appealed back to this court again. But right now, all they’re doing is saying “hey things have changed since you issued your order, re-rule on this case”.