Federal judge halts Trump's proposed food stamp cutback for 700,000 Americans

[RAMOSS]

SO, just before an election, during a recession caused by a pandemic, the Trump admin wants to slash food stamps. This sounds so compassionate.

Federal judge halts Trump's proposed food stamp cutback for 700,000 Americans

In her ruling Sunday, Howell wrote that the department, which administers the food stamp program, had been "icily silent" about the number of people who would be affected.

www.nbcnews.com

A federal judge struck down a Trump administration rule that would have reduced food stamp benefits to nearly 700,000 people.

In her Sunday ruling, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell wrote that implementing the change "radically and abruptly alters decades of regulatory practice, leaving States scrambling and exponentially increasing food insecurity for tens of thousands of Americans."


In December, the Department of Agriculture formalized a proposal for work requirements for recipients of food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, that would have disqualified an estimated 688,000 people from food benefits.

 

[ClaraD]

SO, just before an election, during a recession caused by a pandemic, the Trump admin wants to slash food stamps. This sounds so compassionate.

Federal judge halts Trump's proposed food stamp cutback for 700,000 Americans

In her ruling Sunday, Howell wrote that the department, which administers the food stamp program, had been "icily silent" about the number of people who would be affected.

www.nbcnews.com

This is the one thing they should not be doing...in fact, we should be increasing food stamp programs, educational assistance for people who lost their jobs to transition into another sector, day care, tutoring for children being homeschooled or remote due to Covid, etc.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Why would Donald Trump care if people need food to eat? He can just borrow another 400 million and that will do him for the next 20 years.

 

[Crossfire]

SO, just before an election, during a recession caused by a pandemic, the Trump admin wants to slash food stamps. This sounds so compassionate.

Federal judge halts Trump's proposed food stamp cutback for 700,000 Americans

In her ruling Sunday, Howell wrote that the department, which administers the food stamp program, had been "icily silent" about the number of people who would be affected.

www.nbcnews.com

If you read the article, this proposal was from 2019, well before the pandemic.

 

[Objective Voice]

If you read the article, this proposal was from 2019, well before the pandemic.

I thought so. Even still, ruling against it especially now when millions are still out of work due to this pandemic was the right call.

 

[OscarLevant]

If you read the article, this proposal was from 2019, well before the pandemic.

If 700,000 Americans need food, and are having trouble making enough money to eat ( my brother is such a person ) why is he cutting foodstamps at any time?

 

[Crossfire]

If 700,000 Americans need food, and are having trouble making enough money to eat ( my brother is such a person ) why is he cutting foodstamps at any time?

Did you read the proposal? It was targeting able-bodied people in a certain age range, during a time when the economy was at a point where you would have to choose not to work to not have a job. Requiring a little effort on an individual's part in order to receive assistance is not asking too much.

 

[ludin]

SO, just before an election, during a recession caused by a pandemic, the Trump admin wants to slash food stamps. This sounds so compassionate.

Federal judge halts Trump's proposed food stamp cutback for 700,000 Americans

In her ruling Sunday, Howell wrote that the department, which administers the food stamp program, had been "icily silent" about the number of people who would be affected.

www.nbcnews.com

Actually what they did was roll back obama's rule which was ( "radically and abruptly alters decades of regulatory practice) when he added those hundreds of thousands of people
to the roles to begin with by expanding the requirements which allowed them.

These judges are not playing fair ball. They have all but made it impossible and are inputting their own opinion vs the law.
they are simply making up this new standard while not applying it in the other direction.

 

[RAMOSS]

Actually what they did was roll back obama's rule which was ( "radically and abruptly alters decades of regulatory practice) when he added those hundreds of thousands of people
to the roles to begin with by expanding the requirements which allowed them.

These judges are not playing fair ball. They have all but made it impossible and are inputting their own opinion vs the law.
they are simply making up this new standard while not applying it in the other direction.

I find that quite often, the people who whine about that just don't like the decision. They have not real reason except for 'i don't like it, therefore activist judge'. It's sad.

 

[ludin]

I find that quite often, the people who whine about that just don't like the decision. They have not real reason except for 'i don't like it, therefore activist judge'. It's sad.

because they are being activist. if it wasn't unconstitutional yo publish the rule to begin with then it is not unconstitutional to change the rule.

these activist judges are having their cake and eating it too.

it is a major problem. if one administration can chnage the rules on a whim without congress then the next administration can undo it.

that is why ruling via fiat is so dangerous. it is why EO and memo's and regulatory changes without congressional approval isn't worth the paper it was written on. these judges are overstepping their bounds.

 

[ludin]

I thought so. Even still, ruling against it especially now when millions are still out of work due to this pandemic was the right call.

no it wasn't. the judge is out of line.
once again we have the judicial branch claiming more power than it should have.

if it wasn't unconstitutional to make the rule it isn't unconstitutional to undo it.

 

[RAMOSS]

no it wasn't. the judge is out of line.
once again we have the judicial branch claiming more power than it should have.

if it wasn't unconstitutional to make the rule it isn't unconstitutional to undo it.

You are proving my point. Thank you very much for that.

 

[Guyzilla]

Trump sees food stamps, JUST like covid tests. If you hAVE LESS folks oN food stamps, then that is proof of a good economy.

 

[snakestretcher]

This is the one thing they should not be doing...in fact, we should be increasing food stamp programs, educational assistance for people who lost their jobs to transition into another sector, day care, tutoring for children being homeschooled or remote due to Covid, etc.

Kinda sums up the idiocy and cynicism of this administration. The bulk of Trump supporters are the blue-collar poor-the very people most vulnerable and reliant on government assistance. Smart move Trump!

 

[HenryChinaski]

Kinda sums up the idiocy and cynicism of this administration. The bulk of Trump supporters are the blue-collar poor-the very people most vulnerable and reliant on government assistance. Smart move Trump!

They're like battered wives that stay with their abusive husbands saying" You just don't know him like I do. he means well"

 

[bongsaway]

SO, just before an election, during a recession caused by a pandemic, the Trump admin wants to slash food stamps. This sounds so compassionate.

Federal judge halts Trump's proposed food stamp cutback for 700,000 Americans

In her ruling Sunday, Howell wrote that the department, which administers the food stamp program, had been "icily silent" about the number of people who would be affected.

www.nbcnews.com

Nothing like a good old fashioned compassionate conservative. I'm starting to think trump like Hitler is running a scorched earth campaign against his own politicians. He's gonna take as many down with him as he can.

Sharing is caring.

 

[Objective Voice]

no it wasn't. the judge is out of line.
once again we have the judicial branch claiming more power than it should have.

if it wasn't unconstitutional to make the rule it isn't unconstitutional to undo it.

There's nothing constitutional or unconstitutional about this ruling. It's a legal decision based on fairness and disruption of the SNAP program's implementation under the new rules concerning "welfare-to-work". We're in the middle of a pandemic where millions of Americans are either unemployed, under-employed or getting food from food banks. Why would you want to implement such stringent rules on food stamps now?

 

[ludin]

There's nothing constitutional or unconstitutional about this ruling. It's a legal decision based on fairness and disruption of the SNAP program's implementation under the new rules concerning "welfare-to-work". We're in the middle of a pandemic where millions of Americans are either unemployed, under-employed or getting food from food banks. Why would you want to implement such stringent rules on food stamps now?

actually it is. if the previous administration can make rules out of thin air then those rules can be undone in the same manner.

that is the issue with ruling by fiat.
the rule were put in place back in 2007-08.

they need to be changed back to normal or recession.

the judge is out of line.

 

[HenryChinaski]

actually it is. if the previous administration can make rules out of thin air then those rules can be undone in the same manner.

that is the issue with ruling by fiat.
the rule were put in place back in 2007-08.

they need to be changed back to normal or recession.

the judge is out of line.

Supporting politicians pulling the rug out from under people that need help during a deadly pandemic is pretty ****ed up. That requires a certain level of callousness and sociopathy. Good job.

 

[Cameron]

because they are being activist. if it wasn't unconstitutional yo publish the rule to begin with then it is not unconstitutional to change the rule.

these activist judges are having their cake and eating it too.

it is a major problem. if one administration can chnage the rules on a whim without congress then the next administration can undo it.

that is why ruling via fiat is so dangerous. it is why EO and memo's and regulatory changes without congressional approval isn't worth the paper it was written on. these judges are overstepping their bounds.

See it would be helpful before forming an opinion on something like this to actually do some research on the law. This is not a constitutional issue. The rule change was held invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a federal statute that has existed for many many years and specifies procedures for federal agencies to change existing policies (such as notice and an opportunity for public comment). The way in which the agency went about changing the rule was held to violate the act. The court also held that the rule change was contrary to the statutory language authorizing the food stamp program, and was "arbitrary and capricious" -- a standard that SCOTUS (including both Dem- and GOP-appointees) has approved.

The judge was applying the law. You may disagree with her application of the law, but this is not a novel type of claim -- it has been applied against Democratic and Republican administrations for a long time, there are countless decisions like this one on countless regulations and agency rules.

 

[MaryP]

Did you read the proposal? It was targeting able-bodied people in a certain age range, during a time when the economy was at a point where you would have to choose not to work to not have a job. Requiring a little effort on an individual's part in order to receive assistance is not asking too much.

Maine has had that rule for several years now. Somehow we got away with it.

 

[Crossfire]

Maine has had that rule for several years now. Somehow we got away with it.

My guess would be this has more to do with Donald Trump than the rule itself.

 

[Casper]

If you read the article, this proposal was from 2019, well before the pandemic.

True, that is when it started, but trump did not put an end to it when the Pandemic hit hence it went to the courts and they put an end to it, for now.

 

[ludin]

Supporting politicians pulling the rug out from under people that need help during a deadly pandemic is pretty ****ed up. That requires a certain level of callousness and sociopathy. Good job.

not at all. the obama administration was never and should have never been allowed to change the requirements. also this was done back in 2019 before the pandemic. so thanks for not reading once again or having a clue about what you are talking about.

 

[ludin]

See it would be helpful before forming an opinion on something like this to actually do some research on the law. This is not a constitutional issue. The rule change was held invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a federal statute that has existed for many many years and specifies procedures for federal agencies to change existing policies (such as notice and an opportunity for public comment). The way in which the agency went about changing the rule was held to violate the act. The court also held that the rule change was contrary to the statutory language authorizing the food stamp program, and was "arbitrary and capricious" -- a standard that SCOTUS (including both Dem- and GOP-appointees) has approved.

The judge was applying the law. You may disagree with her application of the law, but this is not a novel type of claim -- it has been applied against Democratic and Republican administrations for a long time, there are countless decisions like this one on countless regulations and agency rules.

yes it would the rule was made out of thin air. it can be undone in the same manner. this bullshit excuse judges have created for themselves to strike down constitutional acts by a president they don't like is not how the system works.

it is an utter power grab by the courts. the courts are not supposed to play favoritism.