• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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.
Reading is your friend "the more you know the farther you go. I would read the article a tad closer.. what was "shot down" was proposed in December..
 
Reading is your friend "the more you know the farther you go. I would read the article a tad closer.. what was "shot down" was proposed in December..
you should try it sometime. yes before the pandemic in 2019.

have a nice day.
 
you should try it sometime. yes before the pandemic in 2019.

have a nice day.
The fact that the Trump administration continued to pursue this Is complete calculated scumbaggery, but hell that's why you love the guy.
 
The fact that the Trump administration continued to pursue this Is complete calculated scumbaggery, but hell that's why you love the guy.
no scumbaggery about it.
the rates should be changed back to pre 08.

there was no need for them to really continue past 11.
 
no scumbaggery about it.
the rates should be changed back to pre 08.

there was no need for them to really continue past 11.
If anything Trump should've increased snap benefits at least temporarily due to the pandemic.. That's what an empathetic politician would do that cares about his constituents. It's OK, it's going to cost his ass a ton of votes.
 
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've read through several articles, and none seem to give the Judge's legal rationale for striking down the rule. Her statements seem to be all policy related, injecting her own opinions. ("icily silent" - Really?). That's not within a judge's scope, and is exactly what we don't want from a judge.

Unless there is something the media just isn't reporting, this is going to be struck down on appeal.
 
If anything Trump should've increased snap benefits at least temporarily due to the pandemic.. That's what an empathetic politician would do that cares about his constituents. It's OK, it's going to cost his ass a ton of votes.
This regulation is from 2019, before the pandemic. The judge tied it up for a year, and just now released the ruling. Pretty blatant politicking by the judge.

This has kind of been superseded by recent events. Worth noting here that the administration is trying to get extra help to people - it's Pelosi that's being the roadblock.
 
I've read through several articles, and none seem to give the Judge's legal rationale for striking down the rule. Her statements seem to be all policy related, injecting her own opinions. ("icily silent" - Really?). That's not within a judge's scope, and is exactly what we don't want from a judge.

Unless there is something the media just isn't reporting, this is going to be struck down on appeal.
Exactly. This judges is simply going i don't like it so i am going to use this new standard that they invented called “arbitrary and capricious”.
This means a judge can insert their unwarranted and interject or intervene something that is outside their scope whenever they want to.
This is basically a sign off that if a judge doesn't like it then they can arbitrarily strike anything they "don't like" down regardless of what the law says.

This is completely unconstitutional and so far outside their scope of power that it isn't funny. It is the largest power grab by the court to date and I once
again blame Roberts and his total lack of candor. He is one of the worst head judges out side of the Warren court and Marshall courts.

He invents things out of thin air to get what he wants regardless of constitutional or law.
 
Exactly. This judges is simply going i don't like it so i am going to use this new standard that they invented called “arbitrary and capricious”.
This means a judge can insert their unwarranted and interject or intervene something that is outside their scope whenever they want to.
This is basically a sign off that if a judge doesn't like it then they can arbitrarily strike anything they "don't like" down regardless of what the law says.

This is completely unconstitutional and so far outside their scope of power that it isn't funny. It is the largest power grab by the court to date and I once
again blame Roberts and his total lack of candor. He is one of the worst head judges out side of the Warren court and Marshall courts.

He invents things out of thin air to get what he wants regardless of constitutional or law.
SNAP benefits? hahaha
 
as usual the argument goes over you head. that doesn't surprise me one bit.
you should try reading.
You should try feeling sympathy for your fellow man, people who are suffering. Your posts have always wreaked of you suffering from an inability to empathize with anyone outside the context of your "political us vs them" game.
 
Back
Top Bottom