Trump Food-Stamp Cuts Blocked by Judge Who Cites Pandemic

One point that the President's team, as do most others, ignores is that the Constitution explicitly states that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The lower courts have zero say and Trump has not only no obligation but also no authority to respond to them, appeal them, listen to them, or file any case in the lower courts.

 

She had a trial ! The judge doesn't just say "well I think its BS"......They have a trial phase that both sides get to argue their position and their case. The USDA apparently did not prove their case, as well as the the other side did, as it related to the actual laws being questioned, .

 

I asked what evidence the judge had, not who presented the evidence. So, what evidence did the plaintiffs present that showed USDA did not follow the prescribed, by law, process. (I am not asking what evidence the plaintiffs presented that showed their dislike of the new rules or of how the new rules would affect then negatively, neither of which would be necessarily illegal.)

 

Neither of us know what evidence was presented. I never claimed to. But you keep making it about the judge without even admitting that their is a process and that evidence WAS presented

 

Actually, it's worse than you suggest. In her final 1/4 of the quote, she never claims that the USDA didn't follow the rules. She simply states what the rules are, acknowledges that the USDA claims they took the required steps and considerations, and then says it's not up to them anyway; it's up to the courts. She is 100% certainly claiming the courts have review and approval authority over every decision of the Executive Branch.

 

They don't necessarily have to, but judges' rulings, especially 84 page ones, commonly would cite some of the evidence -- illegal activity -- that supported the ruling. I saw no such explanation in her ruling.

 

Rod, you cannot be serious ?

She LITERALLY put the illegality in her summery that YOU posted ?

 

Now more than ever, poor folks need whatever help they can get.

This is nuts

 

You should donate to charities that help the poor... It's nuts for you not to if you believe they need the help. Send all you can.

 

You FALLACIOUSLY alleged in you OP that the judge did NOT have any "constitutional support" for her Ruling.

That was DEBUNKED by her CITING the Constitution where it DOES grant the courts the authority for her Ruling.

The FACTS establish that your OP was DEBUNKED.

 

If I didn't read it then explain how I was able to quote it directly in post #318?

 

ALL of the evidence from BOTH SIDES is included in the RULING that you have not read!

 

What she said was, ".... this Court has determined that aspects of the Final Rule are likely unlawful because they are arbitrary and capricious." That is not citing evidence, only the judge's opinion.

 

Which she based upon the EVIDENCE in her RULING that you obviously have still NOT bothered to read.

 

Rod, were done here

SHE GOT THE INFORMATION FROM THE TRIAL IN HER COURT. It was literally in your original post.

 

Where did she cite the Constitution giving the courts the right to order the Executive Branch on policy?

 

She cited no evidence that the rule was enacted in violation of the law or the Constitution. None. She simply asserted, falsely, that she had the authority to decide for herself what the policy should be.

 

She cited Article III of the Constitution multiple times in her Ruling. Try actually READING it for yourself.

 

Complete and utter BOVINE EXCREMENT!

Article III of the Constitution provides the COURTS the authority to decide what is and is NOT Constitutional.

She has the Constitutional Authority to RULE that what your criminal IMPOTUS's regime was doing was a VIOLATION of the Law of the Land as defined in the SNAP Act of Congress.

 

No she didn't, she had a trail, and it is VERY CLEARLY in her written opinion as to what happened in the court.

Someone sued the USDA over the rule, and the USDA could not prove that they actually did investigate the ramifications. You all are acting like she just sat her her courtroom one day and =decided without anyone there that she would just write an opinion out of thin air that struck down a rule written by the FDA.

The rights obsession with making everything they disagree with about activist judges and politics is getting ridiculous. Sometimes it IS about the law.