General Discussion

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

Reply to choie (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:19 AM

Saturday

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Easterncedar

122 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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