Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

In It to Win It

(11,998 posts)
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 09:55 PM Friday

#BREAKING: Justice Jackson has issued an "administrative" stay, temporarily pausing Trump's requirement to pay SNAP bene

#BREAKING: Justice Jackson has issued an "administrative" stay, temporarily pausing a district court order that would've required the USDA to continue using contingency funds to pay SNAP benefits.

The stay expires 48 hours after the First Circuit rules on USDA's request for a stay pending appeal.

Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2025-11-08T02:25:17.084Z
122 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
#BREAKING: Justice Jackson has issued an "administrative" stay, temporarily pausing Trump's requirement to pay SNAP bene (Original Post) In It to Win It Friday OP
Imagine the shit that ensues dweller Friday #1
California paid snap..... Lovie777 Friday #2
4 or 5 states paid SNAP funds in full dweller Friday #7
This message was self-deleted by its author choie Friday #18
I read the comments and am now wondering how this is gonna play out..there has to be a good reason Deuxcents Friday #3
It's past time for us to stop choie Friday #22
It 'past time for us to stop thinking we are more compassionate, smarter, more knowledgeable than Jackson. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #67
Speak for yourself BeerBarrelPolka Saturday #84
Are you a judge? yardwork Saturday #89
Why would she do this? BlueKota Friday #4
See posts 26 and 28 onenote Friday #33
Don't wanna fucking hear it orangecrush Saturday #54
A closed mind makes mistakes. She did the best thing under the circumstances. Don't be a closed mind. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #60
Defending evil is never a good look. Irish_Dem Saturday #69
Neither Jackson nor I am defending evil. I'm sure Jackson is every bit as compassionate as you are. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #71
Jackson's behavior is shocking, the optics are terrible. Irish_Dem Saturday #73
Since you know better, explain how she could have / should have done better. Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #75
Personal attacks are a sign of a weak argument. Irish_Dem Saturday #78
You made no argument. I made no personal attack. You attacked me as "defending evil". Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #79
There seems to always be a reason angrychair Saturday #117
Jackson chose a strict limit of several days TommyT139 Saturday #83
TommyT139, thank you! some_of_us_are_sane Saturday #109
Calm down. yardwork Saturday #90
What the fuck? choie Friday #5
EXACTLY orangecrush Saturday #55
Post removed Post removed Saturday #61
To quote what TommyT139 explained some_of_us_are_sane Saturday #112
This actually seems like business as usual for Supreme Court cases. unblock Friday #6
Exactly, people can stop clutching their pearls. gab13by13 Friday #8
The fastest way to deal with it was to deny the stay BlueKota Friday #9
Exactly. choie Friday #10
Yeah why worry about little kids going without BlueKota Friday #11
if she denied the stay, the administration could immediately go to any other justice and ask for it. onenote Friday #25
Because her job is to interpret the law, not set policy Jose Garcia Friday #38
You show me where in the Constitution it says BlueKota Friday #48
Just bc you are right on this point does not mean that Jackson didn't do the best thing at this stage of the process. nt Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #65
Perhaps you're unaware of what a shut down is? FBaggins Saturday #88
and you must not have heard choie Saturday #115
Not funds that Congress appropriated for SNAP benefits FBaggins Saturday #118
What does that have to do with Jackson's stay? choie Saturday #119
It was in the context of BK's argument above FBaggins Saturday #122
Black & White thinking usually gives you a less than clear picture Fiendish Thingy Friday #29
Thank you. This over reaction business vanlassie Friday #34
Yes. Angry warriors die on the battlefied without helping the end goal. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #66
Condescension is noted. choie Saturday #116
Do you need SNAP? choie Friday #14
Exactly BlueKota Friday #17
So you think 6 weeks would be better? Jackson is smarter than you and cut it down to 2 or 3 days. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #68
Post removed Post removed Saturday #86
Bookmarking for later. n/t rzemanfl Saturday #101
Hopefully there's no point FBaggins Saturday #103
November 2025 SNAP is reported to have been paid in full Rocknation Friday #12
and...what? choie Friday #16
Yes, they have. valleyrogue Friday #37
Not in Illinois Beringia Friday #51
People need to calm down Dangling0826 Friday #13
Again that's easy to say BlueKota Friday #15
am currently using snap many states today have released the funds I got mine at noon Dangling0826 Friday #19
I am glad some people got them including you, BlueKota Friday #21
If she did what do you think the full court would do? Dangling0826 Friday #27
That's great for you. choie Friday #23
You are assuming that if Justice Jackson denied the stay gab13by13 Friday #20
No but I read a lot of commentary from lawyers BlueKota Friday #24
"So why are the courts, especially the SC, continuing to let him..." In It to Win It Friday #31
Why do they keep granting the appeals? BlueKota Friday #41
Unlike SCOTUS, circuit courts don't have a say in whether to hear or consider appeals or not In It to Win It Friday #42
There's that black and white thinking again Fiendish Thingy Friday #32
I have read the Constitution multiple times. BlueKota Friday #43
If you've read the constitution, then you know how appeals work Fiendish Thingy Friday #44
You show me where in the Constitution it says BlueKota Friday #47
Go read the constitution again Fiendish Thingy Friday #49
Never mind. BlueKota Saturday #53
The tangerine tyrant wants you to get emotional. Emotion blinds people and makes them ineffective Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #76
A suggestion that I found helps me is volunteering EdmondDantes_ Saturday #98
Thank you that is a great suggestion. BlueKota Saturday #106
For me at least, donating is harder because I don't see the good in the short term EdmondDantes_ Saturday #110
Fair enough Fiendish Thingy Saturday #104
Thank you for understanding. BlueKota Saturday #107
She couldn't have "ended it tonight". onenote Friday #35
Are you certain about that, Blue? vanlassie Friday #36
He has no authority under the Constitution BlueKota Friday #45
It's procedural, a technicality. n/t valleyrogue Friday #40
MUST READ: explanation for why Jackson did what she did here: Wiz Imp Friday #26
Thank you. As I posted above, I don't expect most DUers to understand the intricacies of SCOTUS procedure onenote Friday #28
Again the Constitution does not give the President BlueKota Friday #50
Everybody here knows what you're saying is true. YOU need to understand that the question is not about the constitution bluestarone Saturday #108
I apologize. BlueKota Saturday #111
Hey, i fully understand. I myself gets so pissed at how things are going here. bluestarone Saturday #114
Thanks for posting that Fiendish Thingy Friday #39
My outrage is because people are starving and BlueKota Friday #46
Post removed Post removed Friday #52
I GET REAL FUCKING ARROGANT orangecrush Saturday #58
Your "arrogance" (your word) won't fix the problem. Jackson did what she had to do to prevent it from being worse. Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #62
This is our country, not yours BeerBarrelPolka Saturday #87
Now that I've stopped hyperventilating orangecrush Saturday #100
Thank you. yardwork Saturday #91
Thanks. Echoing this point: mahatmakanejeeves Saturday #93
The Hill's explanation... allegorical oracle Saturday #95
Given that it was Jackson, I knew there would be some issue like this behind it. Scrivener7 Saturday #102
A somewhat legal explanation is provided here dweller Friday #30
THERE IS NO FUCKING EXPLANATON orangecrush Saturday #56
yeh dweller Saturday #57
Simplicity is no replacement for Jackson's sophisticated operation of the legal machinery to prevent worse events. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #63
If she is so sophisticated and smart, couldn't she come up with a solution that did not make Irish_Dem Saturday #70
She is constrained by the law. I'm sure she has a much deeper understanding of it that I or you do. Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #72
She works for the American people and needs to explain herself. Irish_Dem Saturday #74
Jackson is aligning against those who starve children. She is NOT aligning with those who do. Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #82
You live in a country which is a constitutional monarchy, the British King is your head of state. Irish_Dem Saturday #80
Do not distract by telling me about the monarchy I do not want. I'm well aware of it. Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #81
I agree that Jackson is doing her best, but this seems more of a tactical decision than legal. Ilikepurple Saturday #85
My amateur sense is that Jackson knows that a majority of the Court is against us. yardwork Saturday #92
This message was self-deleted by its author Bernardo de La Paz Saturday #64
There is no explanation for this sort of sentiment, other than ignorance. tritsofme Saturday #94
Let the adults in the room handle these decisions. W_HAMILTON Saturday #96
I understand now orangecrush Saturday #97
Thank you for your understanding. And this is why it is up to us. W_HAMILTON Saturday #105
I agree orangecrush Saturday #113
... CatWoman Saturday #59
America really hates its poor. RandySF Saturday #77
I get the legal reasoning behind it Samael13 Saturday #99
How long will people go without food before there's widespread rioting and looting? NickB79 Saturday #120
Of course she did the right thing. Had the crime brothers tavernier Saturday #121

dweller

(27,574 posts)
1. Imagine the shit that ensues
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 09:59 PM
Friday

When some who have received those funds , spent them for food , and the grocer finds the funds are frozen … fuckery abounds


😑



✌🏻

dweller

(27,574 posts)
7. 4 or 5 states paid SNAP funds in full
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:16 PM
Friday

Today when they became available , from (checks notes) DHS …

And other states were probably processing them before this new stay came down .. i seriously don’t know anymore

But I would not be surprised $$ starts being thrown around and at some later point we hear the Pisswig’s flunkies saying $$ was taken from Dec Social Security payouts to provide SNAP $$ and anyway

WHATYA GONNA DO ABOUT ??


whaddamess


✌🏻

Response to Lovie777 (Reply #2)

Deuxcents

(24,741 posts)
3. I read the comments and am now wondering how this is gonna play out..there has to be a good reason
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:04 PM
Friday

For this decision..especially from Justice Jackson

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
67. It 'past time for us to stop thinking we are more compassionate, smarter, more knowledgeable than Jackson. . . nt
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:17 AM
Saturday

BeerBarrelPolka

(2,108 posts)
84. Speak for yourself
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 03:50 AM
Saturday

You don't know any of us so how dare you besmirch our character. You have ZERO clue how much compassion, brains, and knowledge anyone of us have. Stop being a sycophant.

yardwork

(68,551 posts)
89. Are you a judge?
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 07:47 AM
Saturday

I don't have a clue what this ruling means but I have the sense not to immediately assume that Justice Jackson is wrong or corrupt.

Geez.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
4. Why would she do this?
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:13 PM
Friday

This is just wrong. Doesn't she realize people are suffering? Why won't any hold tsf accountable to the law? Why even bother having the lower courts hear any cases as their decisions are always stalled or overturned completely by the SC?

onenote

(45,842 posts)
33. See posts 26 and 28
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:06 PM
Friday

Before saying what she did was a wrong, take a moment to read those posts.

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
60. A closed mind makes mistakes. She did the best thing under the circumstances. Don't be a closed mind. . . nt
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 12:57 AM
Saturday

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
71. Neither Jackson nor I am defending evil. I'm sure Jackson is every bit as compassionate as you are. . . . nt
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:46 AM
Saturday

Irish_Dem

(77,815 posts)
73. Jackson's behavior is shocking, the optics are terrible.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:53 AM
Saturday

If there is a good reason she is making a horrible looking decision, she should
have made that more clear.

She doesn't work for the rich and the evil GOP.

She works for the American people and owes us an explanation.

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
75. Since you know better, explain how she could have / should have done better.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:59 AM
Saturday

But read the analysis first that explains her actions and show us how that is wrong.

Irish_Dem

(77,815 posts)
78. Personal attacks are a sign of a weak argument.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 02:03 AM
Saturday

My argument is solid.

The Supreme Court Justices work for the American people.
An explanation must be given that is not legal bullshit to explain a decision that looks evil and cruel.

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
79. You made no argument. I made no personal attack. You attacked me as "defending evil".
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 02:07 AM
Saturday

Tell us how she should have been smarter and more knowledgeable.

Tell us where the legal analysis detailed in this thread is legal bullshit.

angrychair

(11,468 posts)
117. There seems to always be a reason
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:23 PM
Saturday

That the poor and disenfranchised must suffer so the rich and entitled are not inconvenienced.

TommyT139

(2,071 posts)
83. Jackson chose a strict limit of several days
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 03:42 AM
Saturday

...making the decision herself, Instead of giving the case to the whole Supreme Court. If she had passed the buck, so to speak, it was very very likely that the corrupt justices would pause SNAP benefits indefinitely, holding off on an actual decision as has happened in other cases.

There are a bunch of big cases where lower courts ruled for plaintiffs, states, etc., but when those made it to Supreme Ct, the cases were put in hold: Trump got what he wanted, with a vague open-ended timeline for arguments and decision. Trump's "delay delay delay" tactic working again for him.

Read any of Justice Jackson's recent opinions and you can tell where her heart is: with us, in the midst of a system decaying rapidly into evils no one would have imagined. (Except for the trumpists.)

some_of_us_are_sane

(2,556 posts)
109. TommyT139, thank you!
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 11:40 AM
Saturday

That's the best explanation of her actions I've heard.

NEVER THINK jUSTICE JACKSON is ANYTHING but for the PEOPLE and for actual JUSTICE.

choie

(6,387 posts)
5. What the fuck?
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:14 PM
Friday

Has everyone gone fucking crazy???? I have just about had it with this country. Even Jackson thinks that an administration should be granted a stay while millions and millions of people need SNAP to eat?

Response to orangecrush (Reply #55)

some_of_us_are_sane

(2,556 posts)
112. To quote what TommyT139 explained
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 11:45 AM
Saturday
"If she had passed the buck, so to speak, it was very very likely that the corrupt justices would pause SNAP benefits indefinitely, holding off on an actual decision as has happened in other cases."

It was the ONLY OPTION.

unblock

(55,777 posts)
6. This actually seems like business as usual for Supreme Court cases.
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:16 PM
Friday

"This administrative stay will terminate forty-eight hours after the First Circuit's resolution of the pending motion, which the First Circuit is expected to issue with dispatch."

Basically, she's letting the lower court do their job, and not too subtly telling them to do it quickly.

gab13by13

(30,629 posts)
8. Exactly, people can stop clutching their pearls.
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:21 PM
Friday

Most likely Justice Jackson followed the fastest route to get the money flowing.

I never watch Jen Psaki but I turned her on at 9:30 to get the legal opinion. The person she had on couldn't have been a lawyer because all she said was it was Trump's fault.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
9. The fastest way to deal with it was to deny the stay
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:25 PM
Friday

so people could eat tomorrow not 48 hours from now.

choie

(6,387 posts)
10. Exactly.
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:26 PM
Friday

But Justice Jackson had a meal today, so why should she care if they wait 48 hours.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
11. Yeah why worry about little kids going without
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:28 PM
Friday

food for another two days? It's more important to let tsf keep defending the indefensible, which almost every legal expert says is illegal. Maybe they should remind the SC of that.

onenote

(45,842 posts)
25. if she denied the stay, the administration could immediately go to any other justice and ask for it.
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:56 PM
Friday

I don't expect most DUers to understand the intricacies of Supreme Court procedure. But I also don't expect them to attack Justice Jacksonn when they don't understand the intricacies of Supreme Court procedure.

If she had denied it, the order coming from someone like Thomas or Alito -- the Justice to whom the administration would have turned -- would have delayed things for much much longer.

See Page 4, second paragraph. https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
48. You show me where in the Constitution it says
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:39 PM
Friday

the President has the power to refuse to distribute funds allocated by Congress. The Supreme Courts job is to see the Constitution is upheld, and if it doesn't say he has the power he doesn't.

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
65. Just bc you are right on this point does not mean that Jackson didn't do the best thing at this stage of the process. nt
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:15 AM
Saturday

FBaggins

(28,577 posts)
88. Perhaps you're unaware of what a shut down is?
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 04:28 AM
Saturday

It’s what happens when the funds that Congress has allocated run out and Congress refuses to appropriate more.

This case is over whether a single judge can require the distribution of funds that Congress did not allocate.

choie

(6,387 posts)
115. and you must not have heard
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 12:51 PM
Saturday

that there are emergency funds that could be available for SNAP allocations if the administration would agree to do so.

FBaggins

(28,577 posts)
118. Not funds that Congress appropriated for SNAP benefits
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 02:24 PM
Saturday

The problem with the court’s order is apparently that the law actually limits SNAP spending to what was appropriated (which would arguably exclude the emergency funds) and more importantly… there apparently aren’t enough funds in the emergency bucket to cover what the court has ordered

choie

(6,387 posts)
119. What does that have to do with Jackson's stay?
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 02:43 PM
Saturday

Even if the funds only partially fund November's SNAP allocation, they should be released pronto.

FBaggins

(28,577 posts)
122. It was in the context of BK's argument above
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 04:40 PM
Saturday

When the administration was laying off large number of people - there was a valid argument regarding whether or not presidents have the authority to not spend money that Congress had appropriated. There were times that this was a useful/relevant argument... and times that it wasn't. But it was at least valid.

In this case, there are NO funds left that Congress has appropriated for these benefits. So there's no constitutional question of whether he has to spend those dollars. The question is whether or not he can spend other dollars (in two categories of funds) and whether or not a court can force him to do it.

Both conversations are interesting - but neither is particularly relevant because KBJ didn't have a choice. I'm hoping that the debate is quickly moot (because we win concessions and the government reopens) - but it's unlikely that we can win on either point (with this court). So she did the best that she could with the few options she had.

Fiendish Thingy

(21,479 posts)
29. Black & White thinking usually gives you a less than clear picture
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:03 PM
Friday

There is a thread on SCOTUS watcher Steve Vladeck’s take on what he views as a strategic stay by Jackson to force a final ruling sooner rather than an extended stay that would result in benefits being suspended for even longer.

vanlassie

(6,186 posts)
34. Thank you. This over reaction business
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:07 PM
Friday

Is unseemly, here on DU where, if you’re not an expert on, say, the Supreme Court, you can take some relaxing breaths and someone will BE ALONG VERY SOON TO EXPLAIN IT.

choie

(6,387 posts)
14. Do you need SNAP?
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:37 PM
Friday

Because I have many older adult clients who do, and waiting ANOTHER two-three days for them to receive it is immoral.

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
68. So you think 6 weeks would be better? Jackson is smarter than you and cut it down to 2 or 3 days. . . . . nt
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:19 AM
Saturday

Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #68)

Rocknation

(44,939 posts)
12. November 2025 SNAP is reported to have been paid in full
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:29 PM
Friday

in California, Wisconsin, Alaska, Illinois, Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont -- and last but not least, New Jersey, where Dems took the governor's seat by 13 points.


Rocknation



choie

(6,387 posts)
16. and...what?
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:40 PM
Friday

What about the other states in the union? Our governor, Kathy Hochul, will probably release state funding for SNAP, so I should just forget about the rest of the country?

Dangling0826

(44 posts)
13. People need to calm down
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:32 PM
Friday

If this decision wasn't from Jackson, I would be worried. This is just a administrative" stay as someone posted earlier it's letting the first circuit do their job.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
15. Again that's easy to say
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:38 PM
Friday

when all of us here get to eat. You think it's okay to little kids continue to be deprived of food for at leat another 48 hours, while the courts continue to allow tsf to keep up his non stop appeals? I don't care if the decision came from a Liberal judge or not. Letting people continue to suffer for any length of time when you can stop it is wrong, end of story. I care about the human beings who are suffering while they play their useless games.

She could have ended it tonight and she didn't.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
21. I am glad some people got them including you,
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:48 PM
Friday

but what about those who didn't? Many will still be going without food for at least another two days if not more.

Jackson shouldn't have allowed this.

Dangling0826

(44 posts)
27. If she did what do you think the full court would do?
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:01 PM
Friday

If she lets the first circuit handle it there is a better chance, they will not get involved. Jackson isn't stupid

gab13by13

(30,629 posts)
20. You are assuming that if Justice Jackson denied the stay
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:44 PM
Friday

that would have been the end of it, right? Are you a lawyer? I'm not and I haven't heard a legal opinion yet.

I would bet that what Justice Jackson did was the quickest way to get the money out.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
24. No but I read a lot of commentary from lawyers
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:54 PM
Friday

that said the money was already allocated by Congress and tsf had no legal grounds to deny distributing those funds. So why are the courts, especially the SC, continuing to let him fan his nose at the law, especially when there are people suffering? There is no excuse that makes that acceptable. It's illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral period.

The President does not have the power to withhold money Congress has already allocated.

In It to Win It

(11,998 posts)
31. "So why are the courts, especially the SC, continuing to let him..."
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:04 PM
Friday

Because he keeps stalling with appeals.

So far, he has lost at the lower courts. Justice Jackson is basically telling the 1st Circuit to hurry up and resolve this.

The 1st Circuit denied his administrative stay request.

Either Justice Jackson was going to enter the stay, or the full court would have. I'd rather have this decision in the hands of Justice Jackson and 1st Circuit than the full Supreme Court right now. The full Court may not have given the same nudge to resolve this quickly like Justice Jackson did.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
41. Why do they keep granting the appeals?
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:12 PM
Friday

He doesn't have the power under the Constitution to refuse to spend the money Congress has allocated. There is nothing his lawyers can point to that says he does. So why do the courts keep letting him keep argue a settled issue? Why bother to even pretend we have a separation of powers anymore? Why bother to keep up the pretense that the Constitution still matters anymore?

In It to Win It

(11,998 posts)
42. Unlike SCOTUS, circuit courts don't have a say in whether to hear or consider appeals or not
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:18 PM
Friday

The 1st Circuit has to review and make a decision. They don't have a choice.

The 1st Circuit has denied an administrative stay.

There is also a "stay pending appeal" request. The 1st Circuit has not issued an order on that yet. Justice Jackson's order is nudging them to move on that.

Fiendish Thingy

(21,479 posts)
32. There's that black and white thinking again
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:05 PM
Friday

Perhaps getting more information would be a good idea- see post #26 for additional info and context on why this was the better move under the circumstances.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
43. I have read the Constitution multiple times.
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:22 PM
Friday

There is absolutely nothing that states a President has the right to withhold the funds authorized by Congress. So why are the courts continuing to appeal something when there is no legitimate argument that can be presented that says he does?

Fiendish Thingy

(21,479 posts)
44. If you've read the constitution, then you know how appeals work
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:23 PM
Friday

Go read post #26 so you understand the strategy and context behind KBJ’s ruling.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
47. You show me where in the Constitution it says
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:34 PM
Friday

the President has the power to refuse to allocate the funds already approved by Congress? They are given the power of the purse not him. There is no validity to his claim that he does.

Fiendish Thingy

(21,479 posts)
49. Go read the constitution again
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:41 PM
Friday

It outlines due process, and the appeals process.

Trump isn’t even claiming he has the power to stop the payments- his buffoons are claiming he doesn’t know where the discretionary funds would come from or how to disburse them.

So, basically, the constitution says we the people have to wait for both the first circuit and SCOTUS to say “we know you’re stupid, but we know you’re not THAT stupid - release the funds now”.

That’s the constitutional reality of the situation, and indignant, uninformed ranting won’t change it.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
53. Never mind.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 12:07 AM
Saturday

Last edited Sat Nov 8, 2025, 12:43 AM - Edit history (2)

I am getting overly emotional because all I can think of is all the people who are suffering because there seems to be no line in the sand that anyone refuses to let him cross. If that's wrong I am guilty but in the end that's all that matters to me. I hate seeing vulnerable people especially children being hurt by a bully and feeling like he is just going to keep getting away with it. I don't want anyone being made to feel like they don't matter. I was never left hungry but I know the pain of people, who don't have many people willing to stand up for them.

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
76. The tangerine tyrant wants you to get emotional. Emotion blinds people and makes them ineffective
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 02:02 AM
Saturday

An angry warrior is a dead warrior and has to be carried off the field dying from their wounds which takes time and energy away from the battle which makes victory less likely.

EdmondDantes_

(1,142 posts)
98. A suggestion that I found helps me is volunteering
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 09:09 AM
Saturday

I can't do anything about the Supreme Court, but I can do a shift at a food reclamation non-profit. This morning we picked up 16 boxes of bread, 2 boxes of prepared sandwiches, 4 boxes of produce, and 2 boxes of frozen food to be distributed to local community food pantries. And we loaded up 2 vans of food to go out to be distributed this morning. That's tangible good I can see every Saturday morning and be done in 2 hours. I'm not saving everyone who needs food, but I'm saving some. Find a group in your community where you can see the impact.

It's so huge looking at a nationwide program, especially when you can't influence it. Find a place you can influence. It makes me feel so much better when I can act on my values.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
106. Thank you that is a great suggestion.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 10:49 AM
Saturday

I have been donating to the Check Out Hunger campaign at our local supermarket. I don't drive but my cousin just retired so maybe he would be willing to drive me once a week to a place where I can volunteer.

EdmondDantes_

(1,142 posts)
110. For me at least, donating is harder because I don't see the good in the short term
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 11:40 AM
Saturday

It's obviously still a good thing to do, but I get such a more positive feeling when I can see the results. Obviously everyone's situation is different, whether it's time or ability to get to a volunteer shift is different, or funds to donate.

I know because my company is hybrid, we do some volunteer projects that can be done remotely. I don't have any off the top of my head for food, but I believe we have done some assembling care packages for homeless people, so maybe someplace local to you has an opportunity they can deliver you boxes of supplies that need to be bundled together into a kit.

There's so much to be angry about right now, but we also need to balance that by finding good and beauty in things too. I don't blame you for being upset at any of this and it's often incredibly overwhelming. But I think that's what they want. They want us to stop fighting. But we got past slavery, Jim Crow, women not being able to vote or have bank accounts, etc. It sucks we have to keep fighting for things that should be obvious like people should be able to get food, but we need people like you pushing for more just as much as anyone else. It's great to follow the system, but to steal from Obama, we've also got the fierce urgency of now. We can use both sides because both are true. We do have to work through a slow system, and we've got people who need help now.

Fiendish Thingy

(21,479 posts)
104. Fair enough
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 10:27 AM
Saturday

Compassion is a strength, not a weakness, but we must also face the cold, stark reality of this administration’s daily atrocities without any illusions or mythology about how our institutions could or should respond.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
45. He has no authority under the Constitution
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:25 PM
Friday

to deny the issuing of funds already allocated by Congress. Why are the courts acting like he has anything to prove that he does? There is no basis for appeal.

Wiz Imp

(8,085 posts)
26. MUST READ: explanation for why Jackson did what she did here:
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 10:59 PM
Friday
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf

Key points here:
As for why Justice Jackson did it, to me, the clue is the last sentence. Had Jackson refused to issue an administrative stay, it’s entirely possible (indeed, she may already have known) that a majority of her colleagues were ready to do it themselves. I still think that this is what happened back in April when the full Court intervened shortly before 1 a.m., without explaining why Justice Alito hadn’t, in the A.A.R.P. Alien Enemies Act case. And from Jackson’s perspective, an administrative stay from the full Court would’ve been worse—almost certainly because it would have been open-ended (that is, it would not have had a deadline). The upshot would’ve been that Judge McConnell’s order could’ve remained frozen indefinitely while the full Court took its time. Yesterday’s grant of a stay in Trump v. Orr, for instance, came 48 days after the Justice Department first sought emergency relief.

Instead, by keeping the case for herself and granting the same relief, in contrast, Justice Jackson was able to directly influence the timing in both the First Circuit and the Supreme Court, at least for now. She nudged the First Circuit (which I expect to rule by the end of the weekend, Monday at the latest); and, assuming that court rules against the Trump administration, she also tied her colleagues’ hands—by having her administrative stay expire 48 hours after the First Circuit rules. Of course, the full Court can extend the administrative stay (and Jackson can do it herself). But this way, at least, she’s putting pressure on everyone—the First Circuit and the full Court—to move very quickly in deciding whether or not Judge McConnell’s orders should be allowed to go into effect. From where I’m sitting, that’s why Justice Jackson, the most vocal critic among the justices of the Court’s behavior in Trump-related emergency applications, ruled herself here—rather than allowing the full Court to overrule her. It drastically increases the odds of the full Supreme Court resolving this issue by the end of next week—one way or the other.

I am, of course, just speculating. But if so, I think it’s both a savvy move from Justice Jackson and a pretty powerful rejoinder to the increasingly noisy (and ugly) criticisms of her behavior from the right. Given the gravity of this issue, it makes all the sense in the world for a justice in Jackson’s position to do whatever she could to ensure that the underlying question (must the USDA fully fund SNAP for November?) is resolved as quickly as possible—even if that first means pausing Judge McConnell’s rulings for a couple of days. If the alternative was a longer pause of McConnell’s rulings, then this was the best-case scenario, at least for now. And regardless, imposing this compromise herself, rather than forcing her colleagues to overrule her, is, to me, a sign of a justice who takes her institutional responsibilities quite seriously, indeed—even when they lead away from the result she might otherwise have preferred if it were entirely up to her.

onenote

(45,842 posts)
28. Thank you. As I posted above, I don't expect most DUers to understand the intricacies of SCOTUS procedure
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:02 PM
Friday

but I also don't expect them to attack Justice Jackson when they don't know the intricacies of SCOTUS procedure.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
50. Again the Constitution does not give the President
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:54 PM
Friday

the power of the purse. He has no argument to say he does. So why is he allowed to keep arguing that he does.

I am not meaning to attack Justice Johnson. I just am fucking sick to death of his pissing on the Constitution and he's just being allowed to continue to do it. Even more important to me is little children and the elderly are having to suffer because the Fucking adults are too afraid to stand up to the bully. I won't apologize for feeling that in the end they are all that should matter.

bluestarone

(20,756 posts)
108. Everybody here knows what you're saying is true. YOU need to understand that the question is not about the constitution
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 11:13 AM
Saturday

and the laws. YOU need to understand that THIS court WILL give TSF everything he wants, plain and simple. That's the reality we have to face. Judge Jackson, I KNOW is 100% doing exactly the ONLY thing she can do here. WE need to stop screaming at her, and start by knowing she is our FIGHTER!! I'm 100% sure she had communications with other judges, and KNOWS exact what their vote will be. I SUPPORT her a million percent!!

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
111. I apologize.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 11:44 AM
Saturday

You're right. I shouldn't have blamed her. I reacted emotionally and not rationally.

I was mistaken in my belief that any appeal could be denied, if there was no legal error in the original court's decision, and the evidence was not strong enough to uphold the plaintiff's claims for requesting an appeal. IMHO that should be the way it works, but understand now that isn't the reality in all cases.

All I could think is once again, he gets to do wants, while others people get hurt.

bluestarone

(20,756 posts)
114. Hey, i fully understand. I myself gets so pissed at how things are going here.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 12:18 PM
Saturday

So much hate in my heart, since these terrorists are controlling our great country. We have lots of bad times ahead of us, that's for sure!! I hope we can keep it together until TSf is GONE for good. for everyone here!!

Fiendish Thingy

(21,479 posts)
39. Thanks for posting that
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:11 PM
Friday

The willful ignorance and recreational outrage on this thread is appalling.

BlueKota

(4,883 posts)
46. My outrage is because people are starving and
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:29 PM
Friday

the Constitution is being ignored. You show me where in the Constitution it says the President has the right to withhold funds already allocated by Congress. I'll wait.

The power over the purse was given to them not him.

Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #39)

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
62. Your "arrogance" (your word) won't fix the problem. Jackson did what she had to do to prevent it from being worse.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:02 AM
Saturday

Arrogance makes everything worse always.

BeerBarrelPolka

(2,108 posts)
87. This is our country, not yours
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 04:09 AM
Saturday

Don't tell starving people in this country how they should feel. I happen to be on SNAP. Your opinion is meaningless. You are not an American and have no dog in this fight personally.

orangecrush

(27,543 posts)
100. Now that I've stopped hyperventilating
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 09:23 AM
Saturday

Enough to read, I understand that she made the best of a bad hand.

Thank you.

mahatmakanejeeves

(67,448 posts)
93. Thanks. Echoing this point:
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 08:02 AM
Saturday

Reposted by Point Blank Sandwich Hat
https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social

Mark Joseph Stern
‪@mjsdc.bsky.social‬

This is the correct explanation of what happened tonight👇

‪Mike Sacks‬
‪@mikesacks.bsky.social‬
· 9h
KBJ threaded the needle thanks to CA1’s unfinished business.

-if she denied the admin stay, the full SCOTUS woulda stepped in to override her.
-if she immediately referred the case to the full Court, they coulda dragged feet.
-instead she boxed them in to act quickly once she does refer the case.
November 7, 2025 at 10:35 PM

This is the correct explanation of what happened tonight👇

Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2025-11-08T03:35:33.046Z


Mike Sacks
‪@mikesacks.bsky.social‬

KBJ threaded the needle thanks to CA1’s unfinished business.

-if she denied the admin stay, the full SCOTUS woulda stepped in to override her.
-if she immediately referred the case to the full Court, they coulda dragged feet.
-instead she boxed them in to act quickly once she does refer the case.
November 7, 2025 at 10:14 PM

KBJ threaded the needle thanks to CA1’s unfinished business.

-if she denied the admin stay, the full SCOTUS woulda stepped in to override her.
-if she immediately referred the case to the full Court, they coulda dragged feet.
-instead she boxed them in to act quickly once she does refer the case.

Mike Sacks (@mikesacks.bsky.social) 2025-11-08T03:14:40.640Z

allegorical oracle

(5,975 posts)
95. The Hill's explanation...
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 08:45 AM
Saturday

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily halted an order requiring the Trump administration make full Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) November payments by Friday.

Jackson’s ruling pauses some of the payments until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit can decide the administration’s motion to block the order pending its appeal.

It does not reflect a ruling on the underlying legal merits of the case, but it provides a temporary reprieve to the Trump administration, which went to the Supreme Court earlier Friday evening.

“Given the First Circuit’s representations, an administrative stay is required to facilitate the First Circuit’s expeditious resolution of the pending stay motion,” Jackson wrote.

Jackson ruled on the immediate request because she handles emergency appeals arising from the First Circuit by default.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5596200-supreme-court-halts-snap-order/

Scrivener7

(57,775 posts)
102. Given that it was Jackson, I knew there would be some issue like this behind it.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 09:45 AM
Saturday

Isn't it nice when you can trust a SC justice to do the right thing? So rare these days.

dweller

(27,574 posts)
30. A somewhat legal explanation is provided here
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 11:03 PM
Friday
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf

Apparently if she had not stayed with a 48 hr timeline , the full SCROTUS 6 could have stayed and taken weeks to decide


✌🏻

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
63. Simplicity is no replacement for Jackson's sophisticated operation of the legal machinery to prevent worse events. . nt
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:07 AM
Saturday

Irish_Dem

(77,815 posts)
70. If she is so sophisticated and smart, couldn't she come up with a solution that did not make
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:43 AM
Saturday

her look like part of the evil system starving children?

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
72. She is constrained by the law. I'm sure she has a much deeper understanding of it that I or you do.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:49 AM
Saturday
I'm sure she is just as compassionate as you are.

I'm sure that if there was a solution such as you describe she would have taken it. From the analysis I have read, she did the best she could under the circumstances to shorten it to two or three days instead of six weeks as would be likely if she had let another justice respond.

Irish_Dem

(77,815 posts)
74. She works for the American people and needs to explain herself.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:54 AM
Saturday

Hiding behind legal technicalities is not a sign of a leader.

She needs to tell us why the hell she is aligning with those who starve children.

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
82. Jackson is aligning against those who starve children. She is NOT aligning with those who do.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 02:18 AM
Saturday

Your posts indicate to me you have not read the analysis posted in this thread or do not understand it because you have refused several invitations for you to refute it.

Irish_Dem

(77,815 posts)
80. You live in a country which is a constitutional monarchy, the British King is your head of state.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 02:10 AM
Saturday

It is hard for people from other countries to understand the profound and ingrained
idea here in the US that the power belongs to WE THE PEOPLE.

Everyone in the US government works for the American people.

Not a King or Queen like in your country.

It is hard for other countries to understand the concept of American democracy
on the deep emotional level we feel it here.

And yes in the US, our leaders need to explain themselves when they appear 100% and doing evil.
Hiding behind a law degree and legal mumbo jumbo doesn't cut it in the US.

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)
81. Do not distract by telling me about the monarchy I do not want. I'm well aware of it.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 02:15 AM
Saturday

Still waiting for your detailed rebuttal of the legal analysis of the constraints on Jackson and why she had to do what she did. Distracting by talking about King Charles is gaslighting the issue at hand.

Jackson is busy doing what she has to do and writing legal opinions where they are warranted.

Ilikepurple

(384 posts)
85. I agree that Jackson is doing her best, but this seems more of a tactical decision than legal.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 03:50 AM
Saturday

It obviously exist within the confines of USSC procedure. She had grounds to deny the stay, but as you and others have pointed out either another Justice or the entire Court would probably have granted a less time-constrained administrative stay if she didn’t. She It’s a bet. A bet that the 1st circuit doesn’t grant a stay pending appeal and the USSC doesn’t grant an administrative stay if it does. I hope it works, but it seems it might just delay the inevitable. I do think this is probably the best Jackson could do in the circumstances. Not really that sophisticated. What she has is a much greater understanding of the culture of the current court as any of us do. It’s disappointing, but I trust her to know best how to handle this appeal.

yardwork

(68,551 posts)
92. My amateur sense is that Jackson knows that a majority of the Court is against us.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 07:54 AM
Saturday

She is one of only a few votes on the Court defending democracy. They have almost zero power because of the corrupt justices Trump put there. She's doing what little she can. She's using strategy to hold onto shreds.

The posts in this thread attacking her are very discouraging.

Response to orangecrush (Reply #56)

tritsofme

(19,727 posts)
94. There is no explanation for this sort of sentiment, other than ignorance.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 08:19 AM
Saturday

Attacking Justice Jackson for a procedural action like this is just ridiculous.

W_HAMILTON

(9,863 posts)
96. Let the adults in the room handle these decisions.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 08:55 AM
Saturday

I have much more faith in Justice Jackson's ability to make the best decision given the circumstances than I do those that are driven by short-sighted emotions that have often resulted in the WORST decisions being made in the mid- to long-term.

Would you feel better if Justice Jackson ruled how you wanted, but then the full Supreme Court overruled her decision within the next few days and then sat on their ultimate ruling for months?

I trust Justice Jackson.

orangecrush

(27,543 posts)
97. I understand now
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 09:00 AM
Saturday

And was beyond reason after hearing the news.

It's a shame that the minority of honorable Judges on the court cannot change what the court now represents as an institution.

W_HAMILTON

(9,863 posts)
105. Thank you for your understanding. And this is why it is up to us.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 10:43 AM
Saturday

It's all the more reason we can't have any slip-ups when it comes to stopping this fascism in its tracks.

It's days like today where I especially get mad at those that said, "don't threaten me with the Supreme Court!" in 2016 when we actually WARNING them of future outcomes like this. And then in 2024, our entire nation had a four-year firsthand experience of the destructive nature of these MAGA Republican bastards and enough of our fellow citizens didn't vote in a way to prevent this from happening all over again...

It's so damn frustrating.

Samael13

(85 posts)
99. I get the legal reasoning behind it
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 09:16 AM
Saturday

But I also understand those responding that are upset. To alot of people this isnt just a legal battle caught up in the process of the legal system. This is reality life and death to them. Some people crowing oh well I received mine cause their state is funding it fully. Some states are doing that but a majority aren't. I say all that to say maybe dont chastise people for being emotional over this because their feelings matter because they're real people who may be suffering themselves because of this.

NickB79

(20,159 posts)
120. How long will people go without food before there's widespread rioting and looting?
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 03:36 PM
Saturday

I don't see this as an unlikely outcome anymore.

The fastest way to see society unravel is to starve people. Especially in a country with more guns than citizens.

tavernier

(14,075 posts)
121. Of course she did the right thing. Had the crime brothers
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 04:03 PM
Saturday

stepped in first (Johnny Roberts and da guys), they would have delayed it for weeks or months. Justice Jackson checkmated them by a 48 hour delay. Then it will have to be resolved.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»#BREAKING: Justice Jackso...