Trump Food-Stamp Cuts Blocked by Judge Who Cites Pandemic

WTF?

Are you DENYING that DOMA was Republicans not following the Constitution when they knowingly passed that unconstitutional law?

 

The subject was liberal activist judges verses constitutionalist judges. Pay attention, respond accordingly or run along.

 

Obviously it is YOU that FAILED to pay attention to YOUR own posts!



Here is EXACTLY what transpired in this thread;

Perhaps it is way past time that you took your own advice to actually "pay attention"!

 

Unfortunately you started your quotes in the middle of the conversation instead of the beginning which defines it as a discussion about judges. You are dismissed.

Your first clue should have been thread title. LMAO

 

You ASKED a DIRECT QUESTION and were provided with an EXPLICIT ANSWER!

That it NEGATED your erroneous position is NOT my problem.

 

FreshAir has swept the board on this argument.

 

You are incorrect sir. She said that the “rules” they created changed the law. She said they do not have the right to creat “laws”, which was shy she made the statement she made. It was the White House’s legal team that argued that the courts have no rights of them, and they were incorrect.

 

They did. Thats exactly what the courts said they did

 

That is not what the judge said. She said that in her opinion USDA did not follow the correct procedure prescribed in law when they initiated and then made a change in the SNAP rules. In her Summary it is obvious her predominate reason for her ruling was a dislike of the possible results from the USDA rules change. This means she is making a judicial ruling on an administrative process which is outside her purview and authority. She conjured up the "not following the law on rule change procedures" for judiciary cover.

 

Your opinion on this matter has been thoroughly DEBUNKED!

Unless you can post her 84 page RULING and QUOTE where it supports your fallacious allegation about her you have NOTHING.

 

So you're expressing your opinion, and so is she. Only her opinion follows her interpretation of the law.

To defend every ruling that the right disagrees with, they have to make it about "activist judges", or an "Obama holdover".

The administrations legal team argued that the courts don't have jurisdiction over the Executive branch, of which the USDA is part of. The judge clearly stated that they are wrong in that opinion. The right in this country had to make it about the Judge, without actually reading what the Judge based her ruling on. You're making a GIANT leap to claim that she "conjured up" a reason, or was more worried about the outcome of the rules change, rather than the legality of the rule change itself.

But this is why we have a court "system" and a hierarchy of appellate courts that can adjudicate the law all the way up the chain. And since the right spent the last 4 years professing their love for the fact that Trump was packing the SC with conservative judges, I find their current accusation that "liberal" judges are making decisions based on ideology beyond hypocritical.

 

From the Summary of the judge's ruling:

"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 receiving SNAP benefits. Of those million, nearly 700,000 would lose their benefits. Especially now, as a global pandemic poses widespread health risks, guaranteeing that 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.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), agency rules, like USDA’s, are unlawful unless the agency has considered the relevant evidence, has weighed the consequences of its actions, and has rationally justified its choices. USDA says it did all that here, but USDA is not the arbiter of the Final Rule’s legality. The courts are, and this Court has determined that aspects of the Final Rule are likely unlawful because they are arbitrary and capricious."​

This clearly refutes your yelling DEBUNKED all over the place, so will this stop your false and hyperbolic shouting? I didn't think so.

 

I just posted but will post again quotes from the judge's Summary:

"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 receiving SNAP benefits. Of those million, nearly 700,000 would lose their benefits. Especially now, as a global pandemic poses widespread health risks, guaranteeing that 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.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), agency rules, like USDA’s, are unlawful unless the agency has considered the relevant evidence, has weighed the consequences of its actions, and has rationally justified its choices. USDA says it did all that here, but USDA is not the arbiter of the Final Rule’s legality. The courts are, and this Court has determined that aspects of the Final Rule are likely unlawful because they are arbitrary and capricious."​

My assertions are perfectly obvious. The first 3/4 of her summary was bemoaning how she thought the rule change was not wise and might hurt people who in her opinion shouldn't be hurt. This is entirely outside her jurisdiction. The rest of the Summary said how in her opinion she found that the USDA didn't properly follow the legally prescribed process. This is entirely within her jurisdiction,...... and all she could scrounge up.

The judge is the one that is wrong: the judiciary branch does not have jurisdiction over the executive branch. It dose have jurisdiction over the lawfulness of some/most actions taken by the executive branch, but those are not the same things.

 

Your reading it wrong:

The first paragraph is her justification to use the law. She isn't pointing it out for political purpose, she is pointing those things out as justification for invoking the law she is using in her ruling. She points out all of the ramifications of the rule change, then points out that the APA law she is using clearly states that the rules "are unlawful unless the agency has considered the relevant evidence, has weighed the consequences of its actions, and has rationally justified its choices". And she says the have not done any of that in her court, therefore what they did was unlawful.

And yes, she IS invoking the law because she is saying that what they are doing is unlawful. Its all right there in your post !

 

I disagree. She is invoking the law with her own personal opinion as to whether thaw APA law was broken. She cited no proof and little evidence that USDA broke the law, only that that was her conclusion. And all of this was clearly ginned up because she did not approve of the actions that the rule change took. The first of the Summary is not (cannot) be justification for the law. It was the reason, which was her dislike and disapproval of the way some people might be hurt from the rule change, for her finding some legal rationalization to enforce her belief on the administration, at least temporarily.

 

All due respect, then you didnt read her opinion.

She very clearly states that because they didn't address/prove to the court that they actually did validate all the things she said would harm individuals, then they broke the law.

Im not defending the validity of the law, Im defending her decision because her decision WAS based on the law. She is saying that because they did NOT address the impacts to the recipients, that the law was broken. The law clearly states that they have to address those impacts, and that they did not address that they had done that in her court. This isn't a judge acting unilaterally, someone had to file a lawsuit (plaintiff), and then USDA was the defendant. The plaintiff in this case proved to the court that the law was broken, and the defense(USDA) could not defend it. nothing more, nothing less.

You may not be calling the judge and activist judge, but you're doing everything you can to label her that. She followed the law, based on what was presented to her in her court. There are 2 sides to the story, and the judge is just the arbitrator

 

What you quoted is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. The judge didn't say that a judge could do anything they want. She said the Executive couldn't do anything they wanted.

Nice spinning!

 

That DEBUNKS the bovine excrement in your OP!

Here is the link to the ACTUAL RULING itself and in there she clearly CITES Article III of the CONSTITUTION giving the courts the authority to make these decisions.

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Opinion-Enjoining-SNAP-ABAWD-Rule.pdf

 

The law says an agency has to do certain things before executing a rules change. One of those things is make an assessment of the impact on the public, but it does not say that the change cannot be implemented unless there is no or little impact. The USDA said they did follow all of the prescribed procedures. However, the judge said she didn't think their process was good enough. Since the accused did not prove their innocence she decided the USDA was guilty. Her ruling did pass judicial muster but only by squeaking under the door -- a judicial loophole if you will -- simply because she did not like the outcome.

 

RodB said: ↑
.......... so will this stop your false and hyperbolic shouting? I didn't think so......

Just as I expected.

 

FFS man. Thats NOT what she said. You keep glossing over the fact that BOTH SIDES argued this in HER court. And the administration/USDA and one side proved their point, the other didn't. You keep acting like she pulled her opinions solely from her own beliefs, while leaving out that their were two sides arguing their case in front of her. You may not like the outcome, but stop making this about HER. Its a ridiculous to claim "a judicial loophole" when you have absolutely no proof of anything of the sort. You're doing exactly what you are chiding her for in inserting your own opinion, with no factual basis to back it up other than you don't like the ruling. You literally admit that in your last sentence

 

What evidence did the judge have that showed the USDA did not follow the legally prescribed process?

 

So you didn’t read it yourself. Got it.

 

It's time for Congress to throw out the entire Judicial System other than the Supreme Court and then start again with more clear guidelines.

 

I only wish they could but there needs to be SERIOUS reform as in an immediate stay and upper judicial review of any district court ruling on a national level.