Trump Food-Stamp Cuts Blocked by Judge Who Cites Pandemic

yep, that Trump filled with activist judges due to republicans changing the rules to only 50 votes needed, that means all future judges will be activist judges

 

Trump was wanting to cut food stamps for quite awhile now. Long before covid came along. And iirc this was proposed last year and has nothing to do with "being the bad guy". Unless of course you're (not you personally) against a cut to food stamps in which case covid is just an excuse to use. And if a judge is using it as an excuse because they're against such then that is judicial activism pure and simple. Which makes them worse.

 

Dems set that precedent when Obama was still in office by making it to where all lower court judges would be appointed by a simple majority vote. Repubs just expanded it to include SCOTUS was all.

I know...facts suck don't they?

 

yes, for the lower courts dems were wrong.. republicans enjoyed this when they took power

for the supreme court picks republicans were wrong.. democrats will enjoy this when they take power

I like facts, facts are facts, regardless of party

I have been consistent on this issue under both parties - both were shot sited

 

Then we have found something we can agree on.

 

Typical liberal BS. Unless you read every single word of our genius liberal judge then you can't possibly say he's wrong. Funny how all the liberals run out and riot the instant a ruling they don't like comes down. No waiting to read any opinion then.

Why don't you list every 50+ page court ruling you've read your entire life since that seems to be all you do?

 

That is not correct. Congress cannot prohibit judicial review of any law it passes. It can only prohibit individuals from taking to court disagreements with how some laws and entitlements are administered as it did for example with Obamacare's IPAB aka death panel. It has tried other things like prohibiting future congresses from altering a passed law but that would have never passed constitutional review by the courts.

 

An 84 page ruling is a red flag. Our constitution is a quick read for a reason.

 

Everything your criminal IMPOTUS does is a red flag!

 

I cannot find the actual ruling. But here are some quotes from it:

They would cut off benefits to about 700,000 people, at a time when the coronavirus is spreading across the country, Howell wrote.

“As a global pandemic poses widespread health risks, guaranteeing that government officials at both the federal and state levels have flexibility to address the nutritional needs of residents and ensure their well-being through programs like SNAP, is essential,” Howell said.​

Those quotes talk exclusively about the judge's personal opinion on the administration's actions. They say nothing about the law.

 

Not wrong. When and if Trump ever violates the law if the land I might listen to your rants. In the meantime you can keep them to yourself. There was no violation of any law in this case.

 

RodB said: ↑
The Constitution does not use the phrase "to the people, for the people, and by the people." It does however take great pains to try and limit the size of the federal government.

Just as I said.

 

Your opinion might be right or wrong, but as a personal opinion it is completely acceptable. Judges, however, are not allowed to rule on their personal opinion or what they might think is "reasonable executive policies." They are constitutionally allowed to rule based exclusively only on the law. When judges stray from this they are not adults in the room.

 

Then WHY did you disingenuously attack her when you had ZERO KNOWLEDGE of the actual content of her ruling?

 

Yes, the courts have a right to weigh in on executive power, and that some righties don't like it means nothing.

 

WRONG again!

In order to countermand what your criminal IMPOTUS was nefariously doing she would NEED to establish both WHY it was a VIOLATION of the Law of the Land and the PRECEDENTS. That EXPLAINS why her ruling was 84 pages long.

Furthermore the States that brought the suit would have had LEGAL GROUNDS for doing so which could ONLY have been your criminal IMPOTUS violating the SNAP legislation in question.

Had you actually done any homework you would have discovered that the LAWSUIT is because your criminal IMPOTUS is VIOLATING the RIGHTS of the States themselves that is STIPULATED in the SNAP legislation!

( Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011– 2036(c); 7 C.F.R. §§ 271–285)

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01-16_complaint_-_snap_-_filed.pdf

FACTS matter!

 

The Judge DID rule exclusively ON THE LAW in question!

Your FAILURE to do any research is NOT her problem.

 

What could be more harmful to the Constitution than having it taught in universities by people who are devoted to destroying it? Beg pardon, "fundamentally changing" it.

 

What is far more harmful is treating the Constitution as if it is a Holy Relic carved in stone for all eternity.

 

The weaker the argument the more words it takes to explain it.

 

Go yell at Bloomberg for publishing fake news if you like.

 

No, they don't..... only if jurisprudence is involved.

 

YOU took the Bloomberg article OUT of CONTEXT and tried to IMPUGN the judge with bovine excrement allegations that you are UNABLE to support.

That is YOUR problem and ONLY your problem!

 

Nobody is treating it that way but there is a method for change built into it and it is not the whim of a federal judge. It requires most of us to agree with the change and that blocks legislative raids by whatever faction is in control for the moment. Until it is altered through proper channels it should be considered carved in stone.

 

Yes, the courts have the right to weigh in, and your political philosophy as a force in American politics ended over a century ago.