Trump Food-Stamp Cuts Blocked by Judge Who Cites Pandemic

The courts interpret the law and make rulings based on the law. They have no business or authority to in general protect anybody.

 

Oh well.

Hopefully EVERYONE affected by these cuts will turn out in droves in November to Vote AGAINST Trump.

 

This thread is an over reaction to an injunction.

States sue the Federal government over pending actions. The court suspends two of three of those possible actions (citing possible harm) while the case is litigated.

Seriously, what is the problem? This is the rational way to proceed.

 

That would be perfectly proper. People can vote for against anybody they choose for whatever reason they have. However a judge is not allowed to set executive policy.

 

You have a point. But granting an injection usually requires a solid belief that the court will make a final complementary ruling and/or serious problems are likely to occur if the injunction is not imposed. In this case it has to be the former because the judge fully expects to rule against the administration because she doesn't like the policy.

 

I believe both sides are doing it, I believe Trump is doing it, I believe Congress is doing it

I believe it's wrong... but both sides are doing it

do you believe it's wrong when Trump or Republican do it?

dems seem to do it to help the people, repubs do it to screw the people

why is Trump trying to take away peoples food stamps during middle of a pandemic anyways?

 

Trump is the leader, if Trump does things he knows he should not and gets away with it, then that sets the tone for the country

dem judges do it for the good, repub judges do it for the bad, like denying people rights and stuff

 

Well ONE SIDE IS SUPPOSED TO LEGISLATE!!! The other side is not, are you confused as to which one? And it's not a matter of party, I have no idea what party this judge is if any.

This is about a judge not Trump.

 

both sides should follow the rules... not break them knowing it will take the other side time to fight them

Trump is the leader of this country, he breaks the rules all the time - he is setting the tone that rules don't matter if you can get away with it legally

legally this judge can get away with what he did, just like republican activist judges do

 

Trump declared a national emergency are courts not to consider that if your cutting programs these poor people now have to have to eat? After this is over then its no longer an issue then the rulings might change.

 

What "sides" are you talking about. We have 3 branches of government. The Legislative branch legislates and creates laws and policy. The Judicial does not legislate and decide which laws are "good" in their personal opinion. They judge whether the are CONSTITUTIONAL. This isn't about Trump. The judge gave NO constitutional grounds on which to simple block and EXECUTIVE action. The EXECUTIVE does not report to or seek approval of the SCOTUS.

And get away as in upheld on appeal

Here is her opening statement

District Judge Beryl Howell

In this country of plenty, the federal and state governments work together to ensure that low-income Americans and their families do not go hungry. The largest federal food assistance program that serves as the cornerstone of this joint federal-state effort to reduce hunger—and hunger’s adverse effects on health, educational achievement,and housing security—is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the food stamp program. A new federal rule poised to go into effect in a few weeks, in April 2020, would dramatically alter the long-standing operations of the SNAP program, placing more stringent requirements on states’ award of SNAP benefits with concomitant,virtually immediate effects on the lives, by the federal government’s estimate, of over one million individuals currently

2 receiving SNAP benefits.Of those million, nearly 700,000 would lose their benefits. Especially now, as a global pandemic poses widespread health risks,guaranteeingthat government officials at both the federal and state levels have flexibility to address the nutritional needs of residents and ensure their well-being through programs like SNAP, is essential.....

That has NOTHING to do with the law. She is saying she doesn't LIKE what the Executive Branch did so she'll just stop it. That's NOT her role.

 

Not quite. We Leftists believe that government resources should be directed to the people, for the people, and by the people as outlined in the constitution.

Bank bailouts, oil subsidies, and tax cuts for the rich, simply do not qualify to that end.

 

EXACTLY...............it is not the role of the judge to say whether they simply like what the Executive is doing under it's CONSTITUTIONAL authority. The states here have no standing a state can sue the federal government to give it money. Congress allocates and the Executive sets certain rules. A judge saying "well you are going to put some people off welfare and I don't like that so I am going to stop you" is an abuse of their judicial power.

 

That's not what the judge is supposed to on. It's not up to a judge whether it is "mean-spirited".

 

ROFL meaning you believe government should take someone else's money and give it to you. Can you point me to that part of the Constitution. BTW that phrase is not in the Constitution, that is from the Gettysburg Address.

TARP? It was paid back with interest before it was due, what's your complaint. It prevented a collapse of our banking system, you don't think that would have affected you? What was your better plan?

Like what? Deregulation has been a boon and a great thing for the United States making us self dependent for our energy needs. Is that a bad thing, you would prefer we rely on Russia and the ME?

And tax cuts for the poor and middle class. And the rich paid more in actual revenues and as a share of taxes. Revenues went up. It helped produce surpluses and measly deficits. What's your complaint?

 

the right believes in corporate bailouts, the left believes in helping the people

 

same as activist republican judges did to Obama, that is why these things go through many judges as the chance of all of them being activists are slim

thought the right is now trying to stack the SC with activist judges, somethign the 60 votes rule prevented, now that it's 50, that is all we will see

 

Oh I get it...if you like Trump you prove it by denying people who need assistance nutrition...especially if their health might be compromised at some point. It makes so much sense now.

 

They already do. It's called "taxes".

However, I am in a tax bracket that does not qualify for most federal assistance programs like SNAP, but I gladly pay the less than $1.00 per day to fund those programs so that those on the lowest rung don't fall off the ladder altogether.

It's called compassion. Something that is in rather short supply within the RNC these days.

 

The courts have no say in the matter..... at least legally and constitutionally. If a judge doesn't agree with what the president does, she can vote against him next election like every other law abiding citizen.

 

The Constitution does not use the phrase "to the people, for the people, and by the people." It does however take great pains to try and limit the size of the federal government.

 

Why don't you give it to a charity that feeds the poor? That is called compassion. You using someone else's money is not.

 

Not that Obama who bailed out GM. Did I like we had to do TARP which were bridge loans not bailouts, no. But it was necessary to stop a banking system crash. The banking system is like a utility, we have to have one as a necessary system of our society. And the fact remains TARP was paid back with the interest before the loans were due, we MADE money on TARP. We the taxpayers lost our arses on the GM/Chrysler bailout which in fact was a bailout of a specific company. And the right believes government help helps little and in fact makes people dependent on government and that it is best when people can help themselves.

 

and Trump will bail out the farmers, Cruise ships and airlines, and Bush bailed out the banks

We the taxpayers lost our arses on the republican corp bailouts too - not to mention the mega tax cuts for the corps that leave the balance of the debt to the American working class

 

No that is NOT the business of the Judicial Branch. And this is not even about "cutting" a program.

One of the successes of the Gingrich/Kaisch Republican Congress was welfare reform and one of the reforms was to tighten the work requirements. And guess what, people went back to work and becamse taxpayers instead of a government expense. During Bush43 and the 2001 recession I think unemployment was extended one maybe twice but then back to the previous rules and again everyone went back to work. Then the Obama administration broadly eased those works rules and kept doing and extending benefits and increasing benefits and the labor force participation rate tanked, unemployment shot to 10% and stayed over 8% for the next four years with the LFPR continuing to fall.

We have the best economy some say EVER. The best employment ever time to tighten the rules which will not barr people who might lose their jobs during the CV scare. Did you see all the big evil corporations who after meeting with Trump announced they would continue to pay their workers if if hours are cut or they get sick?