An explanation of the situation here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220784615

Best get your facts straight before proceeding to draw conclusions from the facts

the bottom line is that she was between a rock and a hard place and made the best decision she could.

Condolences on your loss.

And the full court would drag it out forever if the conservatives could get their way.
Or at least that’s how I understand it.

If she had ruled the other way, it would have turned the matter over to the full MAGA Republican Supreme Court once Trump inevitably appealed.

Maybe you should read the reason why she did this before posting crap about Justice Jackson, there are several threads about why this happened, and when you finish reading why, then maybe you should come back to your thread and either delete it or edit it.

Jus' sayin".

Unfortunately, she is in the minority so she has limited power. But her dissents and comments against the RW members have been scathing and refreshing to hear.

So people who depend on SNAP in WI will eat.

That the poor and disenfranchised must suffer so the wealthy and entitled aren't inconvenienced.

Eat. The. Rich.

You don't think that she really had no choice?
Well, that's your opinion, but the lawyers, here on DU and in general, have a differing opinion and I think I'll go with them on this.

Reality is that they have made multiple shadow docket rulings in favor of this administration that was counter to legal precedent without justification or even an explanation. Multiple federal court judges have, repeatedly, complained as much.

So, if they wanted, SCOTUS could have ruled in favor of feeding the elderly, the handicap and children but instead decided "nah".

It sounds perfectly reasonable...I'm sure the 7 yr old child going to sleep hungry tonight completely agrees with here reasoning.

Not trying to be snarky at you friend. Just really pissed off at this situation.

No one on SCOTUS is going hungry this weekend.

Eat. The. Rich.

All emergency applications are filed in the first instance with the “Circuit Justice” assigned to that particular court of appeals/geographic area. For the Boston-based First Circuit, that’s Justice Jackson. And with one equivocal exception, every “administrative” stay of which I’m aware has come from the Circuit Justice, not the full Court. Thus, the onus was on Justice Jackson to either enter the administrative stay herself, or risk being overruled by the full Court.
...
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.https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf

And then, further - share some of that enlightened status with the rest of DU. You rock.

(knee-jerk reaction probably has its place ... But, I still kind of prefer ... )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(at the hands of a very conservative court) - were it not for the yeoman efforts made by the very few liberal voices on that panel.

So ... let's try this ... "Liberals on the bench - fighting tooth and nail to make something potentially very bad, slightly less bad by assigning it temporary status." (and winning with those rearguard efforts)

Hope that helps.

moving efficiently so it doesn't just get bogged-down in relentless legal delays.