Didn't he try to use the excuse that he couldn't legally fund SNAP? now he's been legally ordered to and is fighting it
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2025
159 points (99.4% liked)
politics
26418 readers
2491 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Its all excuses for what he wanted to do to begin with, which is take food out of the mouths of kids so that billionaires can become trillionaires
Can we pleeeease not feed our own citizens who are starving? Pretty please!?
Billionaire Burgers. Now with actual billionaire meat!
2/10 would take 1 enthusiastic bite.
The article doesn't make clear, but it seems like there is no reasoning or opinion given since this is an emergency order.
But most interesting is that this appears to be the sole decision of Justice Jackson, possibly the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court. So I'd love to know what the rationale was.
After a Boston appeals court declined to immediately intervene, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an order late Friday pausing the requirement to distribute full SNAP payments until the appeals court rules on whether to issue a more lasting pause. Jackson handles emergency matters from Massachusetts.
This post claims to have an educated guess:
In a world in which Justice Jackson either knew or suspected that at least five of the justices would grant temporary relief to the Trump administration if she didn’t, the way she structured the stay means that she was able to try to control timing of the Supreme Court’s (forthcoming) review—and to create pressure for it to happen faster than it otherwise might have. In other words, it’s a compromise—one with which not everyone will agree
Really good article. Thank you for posting it.
Or, alternatively, no liberal with power is your friend.
Isn't this worse than "let them eat cake?"
Has he even met a person that read a fucking book? Jfc...
He actually read one book: an anthology of Hitler's speeches
Donald Trump appears to take aspects of his German background seriously. John Walter works for the Trump Organization, and when he visits Donald in his office, Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, "Heil Hitler," possibly as a family joke.
Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler's collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed. Kennedy now guards a copy of My New Order in a closet at his office, as if it were a grenade. Hitler's speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist.
Family joke...
You know, some things just aren't funny man. If you insist they are, you're the asshole. Objectively.
Supreme Court: Fuck them kids!
How fucking terrible can you be?
GOP: “Yeah, we gotta starve all them useless toddlers & elders NOW!!!”
I didn’t foresee Jackson going this way… A little disturbing. Perhaps I don’t understand.
This post claims to have an educated guess:
In a world in which Justice Jackson either knew or suspected that at least five of the justices would grant temporary relief to the Trump administration if she didn’t, the way she structured the stay means that she was able to try to control timing of the Supreme Court’s (forthcoming) review—and to create pressure for it to happen faster than it otherwise might have. In other words, it’s a compromise—one with which not everyone will agree
I'm thinking she may also have timed things in a way that results in Democratic-run states, which largely attempted to rush money into peoples' debit cards after the appeals court ruling, having a month of SNAP, while Republican-runs states, which did not, having some very hungry people.
Well, thank goodness there has been an end to the scourge of OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS going to the unworthy buying caviar with SNAP benefits!
Not to mention overweight people eating, getting weaves and getting their nails done!!!!
Heartless cunts.
Supreme court really out here like
What a Supreme clownshow