Post New

Ketanji,

I can't believe you of all people want to STARVE our KIDS!!!!

Ketanji STAYS the lower court order compelling Trump to distribute SNAP aid (pending a decision by an appellate panel).

LOL this is hilarious.

Ketanji is a Nazi! A MAGA! A children-starver!!!!

Reports I saw earlier this evening said that, knowing the "emergency" funds were only enough to pay about half of the qualified benefits, some states had their SNAP administration staff work into this evening processing the payments for their residents, before the funds were exhausted. People in states who waited until "normal business hours" Monday to process the payments, will get nothing.

Ketanji Brown Jackson halts order requiring full SNAP payments, for now

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/55962...

Steve

It is shocking to some when a judge rules based on the law, rather than politics.
Alan

Ketanji could've been overruled by the full court with an indefinite stay. Her stay expires 48 hours after the appeals court rules. She included words on the stay to help expedite the process. Shrewd way to handle a sticky situation.

Rather, Jackson’s “administrative stay” freezes any additional action by the administration to give an appeals court additional time to review the case.

Knowing the legal process is given time to properly play out must add great comfort to those looking into their empty fridge.

It means there must be at least some degree of merit to the governments position on the SNAP issue. Most likely that the separation of powers prohibits a judge from administering a benefits or entitlements program.

That's what most people don't understand about entitlements. It's a counterintuitive name because it causes people to think they are "entitled" to that benefit, that they can't be shut off easily.

Most likely the rules and regulations around SNAP give the executive branch lots of discretion about interrupting or terminating those benefits if funds are.limited for whatever reason.

It would have to be that way. S judge doesn't have the authority or expertise if one months worth of full SNAP benefits should be distributed as quickly as possible and equally or if they should be rationed in some manner.

“If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass–a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience–by experience.”
~ Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens

Most likely that the separation of powers prohibits a judge from administering a benefits or entitlements program.

It seems more likely that the separation of powers doesn't normally allow the Executive to usurp powers delegated to Congress as the Executive has unfaithfully done in this case, and Kanji's stay hopefully means appeals will rule by Monday, expediting the case. If the original court was following the law, that's not a judge administering benefits, that's the judge following the law and recognizing people will be irreparably harmed.

I'd ask you, do you really want children not to be fed and go hungry? Is that your aim? Do you realize your "winning" in this case means people and kids go hungry and are more miserable. Is that what you desire?

No I don't want kids going hungry.King Schumer does.

No I don't want kids going hungry.

No. The same money that was there in the past for this, is there now, and Trump, who disregards norms and precedences at whim, is thrwoing monkey wrenches into the SNAP system, with YOU cheering on his starving kids moves.

Knowing the legal process is given time to properly play out must add great comfort to those looking into their empty fridge.

I keep reminding people, Trump is an "JC". To a "JC" the rest of us are expendable meat. This year, they eliminated the ACA subsidies. They will take something else away next year, like SNAP, or housing assistance, which runs about $67B/year, because they don't care about Proles. They are all about shoveling more money into the pockets of "JCs".

A thought occurred to me. Trump has tried to fire vast numbers of Federal workers. Courts have been impeding that effort. So, cut off their pay, and starve them into finding other jobs. When the shutdown finally ends, some months from now, there won't be anyone waiting to be recalled to their Federal jobs. A backdoor way of eliminating departments, by pushing the staff to quit.

Steve...HBTT

Please provide me with a specific list of "norms" and "precedences" and what your source is and who voted on these "norms" and "precedences."

Please provide me with a specific list of "norms" and "precedences" and what your source is and who voted on these "norms" and "precedences."

You can do this yourself:

AI Overview
Donald Trump disregarded a number of long-standing presidential norms and precedents related to ethics, the separation of powers, and political conduct. While not always legally binding, these traditions have historically been followed to ensure accountability, prevent conflicts of interest, and maintain public confidence in democratic institutions.

Key norms and precedents disregarded by Trump include:

Financial and Ethical Norms<

Refusal to divest business holdings: Unlike his predecessors who placed assets in a blind trust, Trump retained full ownership of his global business organization, transferring only management, not ownership, to his sons. This led to thousands of potential conflicts of interest, as foreign and domestic government entities spent money at his properties.

Failure to release tax returns: Trump was the first major-party presidential nominee in 40 years not to release his tax returns for public inspection, breaking a norm of transparency.

Use of office for personal benefit: He faced criticism for using his official position to promote his private businesses and for receiving payments from the federal government (e.g., the Secret Service) at his properties, which critics argued violated the Constitution's Domestic Emoluments Clause.

Separation of Powers and Rule of Law

Challenging judicial independence: Trump frequently and publicly criticized judges and court rulings that went against his administration, at times calling a judge a "so-called judge".

Impounding Congressionally-approved funds: His administration paused or canceled billions of dollars in foreign and federal funding that had been authorized by Congress, an action a federal judge blocked and which drew comparisons to actions by President Nixon that led to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

Pressure on law enforcement and the Justice Department: He repeatedly pressured the Attorney General and the Justice Department to investigate political rivals or to limit the Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference, actions considered a breach of norms protecting the DOJ's independence.

Abuse of pardon power: Trump used his pardon power extensively in his final days in office to grant clemency to political allies and supporters, including some convicted of fraud and January 6th rioters.

Political Conduct and Democratic Institutions

Attacks on election integrity: Following his 2020 loss, Trump engaged in an unprecedented effort to subvert the election results, including spreading false claims of widespread fraud, pressuring state election officials to "find" votes, and attempting to coerce the Vice President to unlawfully override the Electoral College process.

Incivility and personal attacks: He regularly used social media and campaign rallies to personally attack opponents, critics, the press, and even members of his own administration with belittling nicknames and language widely considered "unpresidential".

Undermining the press: Trump frequently labeled mainstream news organizations as the "enemy of the people" and "fake news," limiting press access and challenging the traditional role of a free press in a democracy.

Mass firings of independent officials: He fired a number of inspectors general and members of independent agencies (such as the National Labor Relations Board) without consulting Congress, actions that were challenged in court.

And there's more! I fart in your general direction <-- if you read this tell me who said this and where.

You didn't answer the question.

Where is the list of "norms" and "precedences" and who voted on them?

Where is the list of "norms" and "precedences" and who voted on them?

I answered your question.

You have a partial list of norms and precedences - deal with those first. For instance, the violations of the emoluments clause - who do you think voted on the emoluments clause?

And we have representatives who vote for us. Some procedures are delegated, but we voted for the person who created the delegation. Capiche? And be less angry and demanding, we know the past couple of days have been frustrating for you.

And there's more! I fart in your general direction <-- if you read this tell me who said this and where.

To which I retort:

“Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!”

To which I retort:

“Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!”

A winner! Kudos! Kudos! Kudos! Did you notice little marco didn't include this in his response? He didn't read my post through. :)

No you didn't answer it, you evaded it.

Who voted on these "norms"? When did that vote occur? Where is the list of "norms" that you say the populace voted on?

No you didn't answer it, you evaded it.

I simply did not evade it.

What do you think norms, precedences, ethics, etc., are? Why do they exist? You need to answer these questions for yourself. Seriously.

Ask AI your questions and struggle with it there. It's a good start.

Then come to terms with that not everything that is legal is right. This is what Trump exploits, and it's easy for him because as Epstein said, "he has no scruples." If he thinks he can get away with it, he beds the 12 year old, and so far he's right, he gets away with it. But was it right?

Who voted for it? I think that's the third or fourth time I've asked and you've evaded.

Print your list of "norms" and "precedences."

Not what you pulled out of your A.I./rear.


And how you know they are "norms" and "precedences."

And who decided they should be "norms" and "precedences."

And when this was decided, and where it was decided.

It wasn't.

It's complete b.s.

Who voted for it? I think that's the third or fourth time I've asked and you've evaded.

Example: Who do you think voted for the emoluments clause? You know.

The answer is there, but you are not ready to learn. Go dig.

LOL this is hilarious.

This is actually incredibly smart.

She prevents the full court from putting it in indefinite delay, to the point where even if they eventually rule in favor it’s a fait acoompli.

She sends it back to the lower court with instructions to act fast, insuring that something will happen timely. She knows that if it goes to the full USSC they will probably rule in favor of their favorite boy, so she avoids that outcome entirely.

It’s hilarious all right, but in exactly the opposite way that you think.

Not Ketanji.

Not a chance.

She thinks Trump's appeal has at least some merit to it.

And that's saying a LOT.

This is actually incredibly smart. She prevents the full court from putting it in indefinite delay, to the point where even if they eventually rule in favor it’s a fait acoompli.
She sends it back to the lower court with instructions to act fast, insuring that something will happen timely. She knows that if it goes to the full USSC they will probably rule in favor of their favorite boy, so she avoids that outcome entirely. ~GoofyHoofy

You nailed it GH!

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf

This is actually incredibly smart.

Let's hope so.

Jay Kuo reached the same conclusion, posted today

<"On Friday night, a large chunk of liberal America freaked out. The Supreme Court had issued an administrative stay upon the district court’s order, which had directed the White House to start feeding millions of Americans. But then it got worse: It turned out, the stay was issued by none other than Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, acting alone.

It was a collective WTF moment.

Why would she do that? Had she crossed over somehow?!

On social media, I posted a piece by Prof. Steve Vladeck of Georgetown Law that I thought explained what had happened. But it turned out to be a bit too dense for many non-lawyers to process, so yesterday I wrote out an explanation in an attempt to make the explainer more accessible.

I’m reprinting it here. But before we get into it, I want to urge everyone to start from a basic premise: Justice Jackson was trying to HELP not HURT here. People who leapt to the conclusion that she is part of some evil SCOTUS plot to deny food to starving children need to take a breath. This is exactly the reaction that the media’s click bait headlines sought to drive.

I find it helpful to assume goodwill from the three liberal judges and work backward from there. It actually is a good practice with anyone whose heart and head are in the right place—particularly in the comments section on social media.

With that out of the way, let’s walk through what happened.

The background

A federal judge ordered the government to fully fund SNAP benefits for November. The government decided to appeal that order. That was the really basic evil thing that started this all off. Why appeal a judge’s order asking you to feed hungry people, like you should do under the law anyway?

Meanwhile, the White House also asked for an “administrative stay” — meaning a temporary pause of the judge’s order so that the appeals court can consider the appeal. That was a dangerous move, as I’ll explain below.

The appeals court said “no” to the administrative stay late Friday afternoon. So the government appealed that to SCOTUS. The way it works is this: For each circuit, the justice assigned to oversee it makes an initial determination on emergency requests. Justice Jackson handles such matters for the First Circuit, and on Friday evening she stepped in and issued the administrative stay.

But, but, but…why?! Fair question. To understand, we need to play a bit of Chess. Or in this case, Hearts.

Taking the trick even if it’s painful

Justice Jackson’s order said in effect: “We’re pausing the judge’s order while the First Circuit considers the stay-motion, and this pause will end 48 hours after the First Circuit decides.” 

This was the right move to make. Justice Jackson used the tools she had to force a faster process rather than let things drag indefinitely.

Why is that? If the district judge’s order were allowed to go into effect immediately, it might get legally messy. And if the case got delayed as a result, millions might go without benefits. But what could cause that delay?

If Justice Jackson didn’t grant the administrative stay, there was a strong possibility that five radical justices on SCOTUS would step in and grant one anyway. They’re allowed to do that, and she knew this. And here’s the thing: They could do it potentially with no deadline. The district court order could conceivably languish in legal limbo for a long time.

So she took control of the case the only way she could. If this were a Hearts game, she “took the trick”—and some heart points in the process—but also and critically assumed control of play. Now the pause is temporary, it ends 48 hours after the appeals court acts, and she has signaled the appeals court must act quickly.

Her other option was to deny the administrative stay, but then as I discussed above the full Court could weigh in to overrule her. If the full Court granted the administrative stay, it might have stretched out for weeks (or more) before a decision came—while still blocking the judge’s order. She reduced the chance of that by acting.

Justice Jackson’s stay has an automatic time-limit, so the appeals court is under pressure. In that sense, she chose “the least-bad option” given the messy facts and timing.

What now?

Justice Jackson’s stay wasn’t a final ruling on whether the government is right or wrong. The stay simply pauses the lower court’s order while the appeals process catches up. That’s order should come out, perhaps even by tonight or tomorrow.

She definitely wasn’t endorsing the lower court’s order, nor was she giving the government a permanent win. The stay is quite temporary, and she’s hoping the First Circuit issues a full opinion soon.

Appellate procedure can be hard even for experienced lawyers to parse at times. I’m certain her clerks and she weighed all options and gamed this out before she acted. We don’t know how SCOTUS will rule in the end, but she took away their power to delay the decision indefinitely by setting out the timeline herself. It’s ironic because Justice Jackson is actually one of the biggest critics of administrative stays issued on the emergency or “shadow” docket. And here she was, cleverly using the system against the majority.

I said as much previously and agree.

While I agree with Ketanji about almost nothing at all, it's interesting how cynical the ProgLibs are, as to view Ketanji as not an honest jurist, doing her best to rule on the law fairly and impartially--but rather, as a partisan, conniving manipulator going through all kinds of mental calculations solely to try to "beat Trump."

Rather than simply recognizing that Ketanji stayed the food stamps because she determined that it was legally correct to do so, the ProgLibs apparently believe she should not follow the law fairly, but just figure out the cleverest way to manipulate the law to achieve their desired ends.

Dishonest people project their cynicism and dishonesty onto everyone, and everything.

Q: What was the impact of catastrophic medical events on households before PPACA?

AI Ans:
"Impact of Catastrophic Medical Events on Households Before the PPACA
Financial Consequences

Catastrophic medical events often led to significant financial strain on households.
Many families faced crippling medical debt, which could result in bankruptcy or severe financial hardship.
Uninsured individuals were particularly vulnerable, as they were responsible for the full cost of their medical care.

Access to Care

Households without insurance frequently postponed or avoided necessary medical treatment due to cost concerns.
This delay in care could lead to worsening health conditions and increased long-term medical expenses.

Coverage Gaps

Prior to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), millions of Americans were uninsured, especially during economic downturns.
The lack of affordable insurance options left many families without adequate coverage, increasing their risk of financial ruin from unexpected medical events.

Demographic Disparities

The impact of catastrophic medical events disproportionately affected low-income families, particularly among Black and Hispanic communities.
These groups faced higher rates of uninsurance and underinsurance, exacerbating the financial and health consequences of medical emergencies.

The PPACA aimed to address these issues by expanding insurance coverage and reducing the incidence of catastrophic medical spending.

According to Kaiser Foundation, 5% of the population uses up 50% of all health care dollars. 50% use about 3%. The other 45% use about 47%.

The reality is that significantly cutting health care costs means rationing the health care used by the 5% who consume 50% of health care dollars.

ACA is and has always been actuarially unsound. The system of subsidies largely conceals who is actually using the health care dollars, vs. who is actually paying for those services.

While I agree with Ketanji about almost nothing at all, it's interesting how cynical the ProgLibs are, as to view Ketanji as not an honest jurist, doing her best to rule on the law fairly and impartially--but rather, as a partisan, conniving manipulator going through all kinds of mental calculations solely to try to "beat Trump."

Look. Did you read what she did yoyo marco? Her strategy was shrewd.


Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an administrative stay in November 2025 to temporarily pause a lower court order that required the Trump administration to immediately disburse full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during a government shutdown
. Her reasoning, according to legal analysts, was to control the timing of the Supreme Court's future review and expedite the process in the lower court, rather than an outright endorsement of the administration's position.

Key reasons and context for her decision include:

Procedural Management: In her role as the circuit justice for the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Jackson handled the emergency application. The appeals court had not yet issued a formal ruling on the administration's request for a stay, and she granted the administrative stay "to facilitate the First Circuit's expeditious resolution of the pending stay motion".
Influencing the Timeline: Legal experts like Steve Vladeck suggest that by issuing her own specific, temporary stay, Justice Jackson could structure the timing of the legal proceedings. This put pressure on the First Circuit to act quickly, thereby preventing one of her more conservative colleagues from issuing an potentially indefinite administrative stay that would have resulted in a longer pause of benefits.
Acknowledging the Government's Argument: The Trump administration had argued that the lower court judge's order to move funds from other child nutrition programs to cover the SNAP gap was an overreach that "usurped both legislative and executive authority" and could cause a "run on the bank" by judicial fiat. While not necessarily agreeing with the merits, the stay allowed the court system to properly consider the administration's arguments through the appropriate channels.
Temporary Measure: Jackson's order was explicitly temporary and set to expire two days after the appeals court ruled. This highlighted its function as a procedural mechanism to manage the emergency appeal rather than a final ruling on the legality of withholding the funds.

Ketanji said of those things Dum Dum. You just plagiarized an A.I. response.

Ketanji said of those things Dum Dum. You just plagiarized an A.I. response.

This response makes no sense. You need to work on making intelligible answers.

The 1st circuit has rejected the governments request. Ketanji’s stay will expire in 48 hours.

Ketanji needs to stand up and take a bow.

I have foreboding about the ACA vote.

increasing their risk of financial ruin from unexpected medical events.

I remember when I was young and in between jobs. I'd ask about COBRA but it was very high. So I'd get catastrophic just to prevent complete ruin.

ACA is and has always been actuarially unsound.

Our health system is unsound. We should try other systems and fixes, experiment, see what will work, but the response is always - you can't get there from here.

The 1st circuit has rejected the governments request. Ketanji’s stay will expire in 48 hours.

Wait a minute! Are you telling me that Ketanji Brown Jackson’s stay was simply procedural and was not because she was stabbing liberals in the back?

Are you saying that Lapsody (Dum Dum) was actually correct with his AI generated response, and little marco was full of horseshit?

No. Tell me it’s not true!

While I agree with Ketanji about almost nothing at all, it's interesting how cynical the ProgLibs are, as to view Ketanji as not an honest jurist, doing her best to rule on the law fairly and impartially--but rather, as a partisan, conniving manipulator going through all kinds of mental calculations solely to try to "beat Trump."

I understand that your would automatically think that. What she actually did was to make sure the legal system worked - and timely, since there was public safety involved.

She did not rule “partisan” one way or the other, she ruled to get the case moved along rather than get stuck in an endless queue at the USSC. She moved the issue back down to a court which had already considered it, told them to move timely (48 hours) and was done.

Her response was not partisan in any way.

Hard to believe, I know, since you are now used to having judges decide things not on the legal merit but on whether they are hectored into submission by the 300 pound toddler.

NO goofy, you deliberately twisted what I said--

What I had said is that YOU ProGlibs believe Ketanji is a cynical politicized opportunist, that SHE doesn't call balls and strikes, but rather manipulates and calculates to get a desired result.


Which YOUR OWN POST just CONFIRMED. That's how YOU, and your proglib ilk think.


Not how I think.

Which YOUR OWN POST just CONFIRMED. That's how YOU, and your proglib ilk think.

In other words, Goofy was right and you’re full of road apples

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.