General Discussion

BlueKota

(4,907 posts)

111. I apologize.

Sat Nov 8, 2025, 11:44 AM

Nov 8

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

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 Nov 7 OP

Imagine the shit that ensues dweller Nov 7 #1

California paid snap..... Lovie777 Nov 7 #2

4 or 5 states paid SNAP funds in full dweller Nov 7 #7

This message was self-deleted by its author choie Nov 7 #18

I read the comments and am now wondering how this is gonna play out..there has to be a good reason Deuxcents Nov 7 #3

It's past time for us to stop choie Nov 7 #22

It 'past time for us to stop thinking we are more compassionate, smarter, more knowledgeable than Jackson. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Nov 8 #67

Speak for yourself BeerBarrelPolka Nov 8 #84

Are you a judge? yardwork Nov 8 #89

Why would she do this? BlueKota Nov 7 #4

See posts 26 and 28 onenote Nov 7 #33

Don't wanna fucking hear it orangecrush Nov 8 #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 Nov 8 #60

Defending evil is never a good look. Irish_Dem Nov 8 #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 Nov 8 #71

Jackson's behavior is shocking, the optics are terrible. Irish_Dem Nov 8 #73

Since you know better, explain how she could have / should have done better. Bernardo de La Paz Nov 8 #75

Personal attacks are a sign of a weak argument. Irish_Dem Nov 8 #78

You made no argument. I made no personal attack. You attacked me as "defending evil". Bernardo de La Paz Nov 8 #79

There seems to always be a reason angrychair Nov 8 #117

Jackson chose a strict limit of several days TommyT139 Nov 8 #83

TommyT139, thank you! some_of_us_are_sane Nov 8 #109

Calm down. yardwork Nov 8 #90

What the fuck? choie Nov 7 #5

EXACTLY orangecrush Nov 8 #55

Post removed Post removed Nov 8 #61

To quote what TommyT139 explained some_of_us_are_sane Nov 8 #112

This actually seems like business as usual for Supreme Court cases. unblock Nov 7 #6

Exactly, people can stop clutching their pearls. gab13by13 Nov 7 #8

The fastest way to deal with it was to deny the stay BlueKota Nov 7 #9

Exactly. choie Nov 7 #10

Yeah why worry about little kids going without BlueKota Nov 7 #11

if she denied the stay, the administration could immediately go to any other justice and ask for it. onenote Nov 7 #25

Because her job is to interpret the law, not set policy Jose Garcia Nov 7 #38

You show me where in the Constitution it says BlueKota Nov 7 #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 Nov 8 #65

Perhaps you're unaware of what a shut down is? FBaggins Nov 8 #88

and you must not have heard choie Nov 8 #115

Not funds that Congress appropriated for SNAP benefits FBaggins Nov 8 #118

What does that have to do with Jackson's stay? choie Nov 8 #119

It was in the context of BK's argument above FBaggins Nov 8 #122

Black & White thinking usually gives you a less than clear picture Fiendish Thingy Nov 7 #29

Thank you. This over reaction business vanlassie Nov 7 #34

Yes. Angry warriors die on the battlefied without helping the end goal. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Nov 8 #66

Condescension is noted. choie Nov 8 #116

Do you need SNAP? choie Nov 7 #14

Exactly BlueKota Nov 7 #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 Nov 8 #68

Post removed Post removed Nov 8 #86

Bookmarking for later. n/t rzemanfl Nov 8 #101

Hopefully there's no point FBaggins Nov 8 #103

November 2025 SNAP is reported to have been paid in full Rocknation Nov 7 #12

and...what? choie Nov 7 #16

Yes, they have. valleyrogue Nov 7 #37

Not in Illinois Beringia Nov 7 #51

People need to calm down Dangling0826 Nov 7 #13

Again that's easy to say BlueKota Nov 7 #15

am currently using snap many states today have released the funds I got mine at noon Dangling0826 Nov 7 #19

I am glad some people got them including you, BlueKota Nov 7 #21

If she did what do you think the full court would do? Dangling0826 Nov 7 #27

That's great for you. choie Nov 7 #23

You are assuming that if Justice Jackson denied the stay gab13by13 Nov 7 #20

No but I read a lot of commentary from lawyers BlueKota Nov 7 #24

"So why are the courts, especially the SC, continuing to let him..." In It to Win It Nov 7 #31

Why do they keep granting the appeals? BlueKota Nov 7 #41

Unlike SCOTUS, circuit courts don't have a say in whether to hear or consider appeals or not In It to Win It Nov 7 #42

There's that black and white thinking again Fiendish Thingy Nov 7 #32

I have read the Constitution multiple times. BlueKota Nov 7 #43

If you've read the constitution, then you know how appeals work Fiendish Thingy Nov 7 #44

You show me where in the Constitution it says BlueKota Nov 7 #47

Go read the constitution again Fiendish Thingy Nov 7 #49

Never mind. BlueKota Nov 8 #53

The tangerine tyrant wants you to get emotional. Emotion blinds people and makes them ineffective Bernardo de La Paz Nov 8 #76

A suggestion that I found helps me is volunteering EdmondDantes_ Nov 8 #98

Thank you that is a great suggestion. BlueKota Nov 8 #106

For me at least, donating is harder because I don't see the good in the short term EdmondDantes_ Nov 8 #110

Fair enough Fiendish Thingy Nov 8 #104

Thank you for understanding. BlueKota Nov 8 #107

She couldn't have "ended it tonight". onenote Nov 7 #35

Are you certain about that, Blue? vanlassie Nov 7 #36

He has no authority under the Constitution BlueKota Nov 7 #45

It's procedural, a technicality. n/t valleyrogue Nov 7 #40

MUST READ: explanation for why Jackson did what she did here: Wiz Imp Nov 7 #26

Thank you. As I posted above, I don't expect most DUers to understand the intricacies of SCOTUS procedure onenote Nov 7 #28

Again the Constitution does not give the President BlueKota Nov 7 #50

Everybody here knows what you're saying is true. YOU need to understand that the question is not about the constitution bluestarone Nov 8 #108

I apologize. BlueKota Nov 8 #111

Hey, i fully understand. I myself gets so pissed at how things are going here. bluestarone Nov 8 #114

Thanks for posting that Fiendish Thingy Nov 7 #39

My outrage is because people are starving and BlueKota Nov 7 #46

Post removed Post removed Nov 7 #52

I GET REAL FUCKING ARROGANT orangecrush Nov 8 #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 Nov 8 #62

This is our country, not yours BeerBarrelPolka Nov 8 #87

Now that I've stopped hyperventilating orangecrush Nov 8 #100

Thank you. yardwork Nov 8 #91

Thanks. Echoing this point: mahatmakanejeeves Nov 8 #93

The Hill's explanation... allegorical oracle Nov 8 #95

Given that it was Jackson, I knew there would be some issue like this behind it. Scrivener7 Nov 8 #102

A somewhat legal explanation is provided here dweller Nov 7 #30

THERE IS NO FUCKING EXPLANATON orangecrush Nov 8 #56

yeh dweller Nov 8 #57

Simplicity is no replacement for Jackson's sophisticated operation of the legal machinery to prevent worse events. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Nov 8 #63

If she is so sophisticated and smart, couldn't she come up with a solution that did not make Irish_Dem Nov 8 #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 Nov 8 #72

She works for the American people and needs to explain herself. Irish_Dem Nov 8 #74

Jackson is aligning against those who starve children. She is NOT aligning with those who do. Bernardo de La Paz Nov 8 #82

You live in a country which is a constitutional monarchy, the British King is your head of state. Irish_Dem Nov 8 #80

Do not distract by telling me about the monarchy I do not want. I'm well aware of it. Bernardo de La Paz Nov 8 #81

I agree that Jackson is doing her best, but this seems more of a tactical decision than legal. Ilikepurple Nov 8 #85

My amateur sense is that Jackson knows that a majority of the Court is against us. yardwork Nov 8 #92

This message was self-deleted by its author Bernardo de La Paz Nov 8 #64

There is no explanation for this sort of sentiment, other than ignorance. tritsofme Nov 8 #94

Let the adults in the room handle these decisions. W_HAMILTON Nov 8 #96

I understand now orangecrush Nov 8 #97

Thank you for your understanding. And this is why it is up to us. W_HAMILTON Nov 8 #105

I agree orangecrush Nov 8 #113

... CatWoman Nov 8 #59

America really hates its poor. RandySF Nov 8 #77

I get the legal reasoning behind it Samael13 Nov 8 #99

How long will people go without food before there's widespread rioting and looting? NickB79 Nov 8 #120

Of course she did the right thing. Had the crime brothers tavernier Nov 8 #121