The members of her committee advised him regularly.

Mainly that none of them face a primary in 2026. Am I right? Am I wrong?

With Schumer who is complicit, if not the leader of this move.

The decision could have come as early as this week.

It's much more nuanced than that. She did something very strategic and there are plenty of sources that explain the importance of her very good ruling.

... but the once constant is that she knew if she passed it to the full court for consideration (or tried to allow the lower court's ruling to stand), the full court would block the order.

I've seen no speculation from a knowledgeable source indicating that SCOTUS would force the administration to fund SNAP beyond the normal funding that Congress had provided (and which had run out).

Convinced that KBJ was between a rock and a hard place and did the best she could with what she had.

She likely was more measured and discerning than others may have been given the same situation.

Some here however, may see things as more either/or.

The decision escaped the boundaries of a purely up or down ruling. I'm not sure how many others realize that.

SCOTUS extended KBJ's pause while the political process ran (over KBJ's solo objection)... and the issue is likely now moot.

Shouldn't be paid while there is a shutdown or allowed to eat while people are not allowed to use their SNAP benefits which, I will add, takes fourteen contorted runarounds, an elaborate hoop dance followed by a continuous performance of the dance of the seven fucking veils just to see if you qualify.

And if you do, you have to do the hoop dance every 6 months to remain qualified.

I, personally, have qualified for SNAP since before I retired but once I started receiving SSDI I dropped it. It was too much bullshit to go through for $40/month. I can find $40 for food if I actually have a little money ...and others need it far more than I do so I decided I wouldn't bother.

But I KNOW all that goes into proving you qualify and remain qualified and it's not easy by any stretch of the imagination. If half the people who complain about SNAP beneficiaries had to go through all that bullshit, they'd think differently about it.

Belgium went years with their parlanent in a deadlock, they just adjusted the old buget up for inflation. The cliff should only be on mechanations. If congress takes too long they can then take all year for the next budget.

Any truth to that? Because somehow, it wouldn't surprise me at this point.

The relevance would be whether ACA coverage included abortion or after care of an abortion that didn't go well. The "pro-lifers" would gladly watch a woman suffer and die if she had gone through an abortion and needed medical care.

What happened to the language Sen. Paul objected to on Marijuana and the retroactive bill to allow 6 Senators to sue the federal government over some J6 issues? There may have been others, too, that I didn't hear about.

you pointed out. I would expect that if people look there are some nice "goodies" for the 8 who turned yellow and defected.

lawmakers raise this issue before the shutdown and demand this money before the fight about re-opening the govt?

If the average SNAP payment is $400/month (this is a high figure) by getting this $5,000 of DOGE money every American receiving SNAP payments could be assured of not going hungry for a year and our lawmakers would not have caved to the Rs.

We're things that the courts already restored ( SNAP benifits)and things that were already law.(paying back pay of furloughed employees) and all the layoffs I'm sure would have won in courts for reinstatement.