Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

vapor2

(4,112 posts)
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 12:00 PM Nov 2025

Last night Scotus lackeys approved a pause in SNAP funds

This is temporary but does anyone know when they will make a final decision on letting people starve?? Asking for a country

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Last night Scotus lackeys approved a pause in SNAP funds (Original Post) vapor2 Nov 2025 OP
A decision by the 1st Circuit is expected within days. Ocelot II Nov 2025 #1
Justice Jackson is no "lackey" FBaggins Nov 2025 #2
I've had a loss in the family and out of the loop . Why did she go for a pause? What was her reasoning? Autumn Nov 2025 #3
There are numerous threads explaining why she did this, MarineCombatEngineer Nov 2025 #5
Thanks. She is not one to roll over. Autumn Nov 2025 #20
She set a 48 hour deadline instead of the full conservative court leaving an open deadline. Lars39 Nov 2025 #7
You are right. She did what she could to somewhat still maintain control over the sutuation. W_HAMILTON Nov 2025 #8
So you think Justice Jackson is a lackey? MarineCombatEngineer Nov 2025 #4
Agreed. In her short time, she has shown that she is no lackey newdeal2 Nov 2025 #9
The governor of Wisconsin got it done before the pause. milestogo Nov 2025 #6
Here, maybe this will help you understand why Justice Jackson is no "lackey". MarineCombatEngineer Nov 2025 #10
Somehow there is always a reason angrychair Nov 2025 #12
So you think she's a lackey also? MarineCombatEngineer Nov 2025 #13
I'm sure the reason sounds good angrychair Nov 2025 #14
She did not decide nah, MarineCombatEngineer Nov 2025 #15
I read it angrychair Nov 2025 #17
Understood, the anger is justified at the whole situation. MarineCombatEngineer Nov 2025 #18
One thing is for sure angrychair Nov 2025 #11
i get so sick of the endless pearl clutching CatWoman Nov 2025 #16
Jackson is not a SCOTUS lackey; she did it to avoid a longer stay by the full Court. SunSeeker Nov 2025 #19
Thank you. To you, and other posters that actual bother to read and understand ... stopdiggin Nov 2025 #23
And the answer is ... The delay/suspension could very well have been made permanenet stopdiggin Nov 2025 #21
You are incorrect. mcar Nov 2025 #22
It's just a procedural book-keeping 48 hour delay. It keeps the overall process lindysalsagal Nov 2025 #24

MarineCombatEngineer

(17,873 posts)
5. There are numerous threads explaining why she did this,
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 12:40 PM
Nov 2025

the bottom line is that she was between a rock and a hard place and made the best decision she could.

Condolences on your loss.

Lars39

(26,507 posts)
7. She set a 48 hour deadline instead of the full conservative court leaving an open deadline.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 12:52 PM
Nov 2025

And the full court would drag it out forever if the conservatives could get their way.
Or at least that’s how I understand it.

W_HAMILTON

(10,238 posts)
8. You are right. She did what she could to somewhat still maintain control over the sutuation.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 12:55 PM
Nov 2025

If she had ruled the other way, it would have turned the matter over to the full MAGA Republican Supreme Court once Trump inevitably appealed.

MarineCombatEngineer

(17,873 posts)
4. So you think Justice Jackson is a lackey?
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 12:38 PM
Nov 2025

Maybe you should read the reason why she did this before posting crap about Justice Jackson, there are several threads about why this happened, and when you finish reading why, then maybe you should come back to your thread and either delete it or edit it.

Jus' sayin".

newdeal2

(5,037 posts)
9. Agreed. In her short time, she has shown that she is no lackey
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 12:58 PM
Nov 2025

Unfortunately, she is in the minority so she has limited power. But her dissents and comments against the RW members have been scathing and refreshing to hear.

angrychair

(11,901 posts)
12. Somehow there is always a reason
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:17 PM
Nov 2025

That the poor and disenfranchised must suffer so the wealthy and entitled aren't inconvenienced.

Eat. The. Rich.

MarineCombatEngineer

(17,873 posts)
13. So you think she's a lackey also?
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:20 PM
Nov 2025

You don't think that she really had no choice?
Well, that's your opinion, but the lawyers, here on DU and in general, have a differing opinion and I think I'll go with them on this.

angrychair

(11,901 posts)
14. I'm sure the reason sounds good
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:30 PM
Nov 2025

Reality is that they have made multiple shadow docket rulings in favor of this administration that was counter to legal precedent without justification or even an explanation. Multiple federal court judges have, repeatedly, complained as much.

So, if they wanted, SCOTUS could have ruled in favor of feeding the elderly, the handicap and children but instead decided "nah".

MarineCombatEngineer

(17,873 posts)
15. She did not decide nah,
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:34 PM
Nov 2025
So, if they wanted, SCOTUS could have ruled in favor of feeding the elderly, the handicap and children but instead decided "nah".


There's a 48 hour stay, that's it.

I'm guessing you didn't read the reasoning behind her stay, but that's ok, like I said, I'll go with the lawyers, here on DU and in general, have explained.
Have a great Sat.

angrychair

(11,901 posts)
17. I read it
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:38 PM
Nov 2025

It sounds perfectly reasonable...I'm sure the 7 yr old child going to sleep hungry tonight completely agrees with here reasoning.

Not trying to be snarky at you friend. Just really pissed off at this situation.

SunSeeker

(57,885 posts)
19. Jackson is not a SCOTUS lackey; she did it to avoid a longer stay by the full Court.
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:47 PM
Nov 2025

All emergency applications are filed in the first instance with the “Circuit Justice” assigned to that particular court of appeals/geographic area. For the Boston-based First Circuit, that’s Justice Jackson. And with one equivocal exception, every “administrative” stay of which I’m aware has come from the Circuit Justice, not the full Court. Thus, the onus was on Justice Jackson to either enter the administrative stay herself, or risk being overruled by the full Court.
...
As for why Justice Jackson did it, to me, the clue is the last sentence. Had Jackson refused to issue an administrative stay, it’s entirely possible (indeed, she may already have known) that a majority of her colleagues were ready to do it themselves. I still think that this is what happened back in April when the full Court intervened shortly before 1 a.m., without explaining why Justice Alito hadn’t, in the A.A.R.P. Alien Enemies Act case. And from Jackson’s perspective, an administrative stay from the full Court would’ve been worse—almost certainly because it would have been open-ended (that is, it would not have had a deadline). The upshot would’ve been that Judge McConnell’s order could’ve remained frozen indefinitely while the full Court took its time. Yesterday’s grant of a stay in Trump v. Orr, for instance, came 48 days after the Justice Department first sought emergency relief.

Instead, by keeping the case for herself and granting the same relief, in contrast, Justice Jackson was able to directly influence the timing in both the First Circuit and the Supreme Court, at least for now. She nudged the First Circuit (which I expect to rule by the end of the weekend, Monday at the latest); and, assuming that court rules against the Trump administration, she also tied her colleagues’ hands—by having her administrative stay expire 48 hours after the First Circuit rules. Of course, the full Court can extend the administrative stay (and Jackson can do it herself). But this way, at least, she’s putting pressure on everyone—the First Circuit and the full Court—to move very quickly in deciding whether or not Judge McConnell’s orders should be allowed to go into effect. From where I’m sitting, that’s why Justice Jackson, the most vocal critic among the justices of the Court’s behavior in Trump-related emergency applications, ruled herself here—rather than allowing the full Court to overrule her. It drastically increases the odds of the full Supreme Court resolving this issue by the end of next week—one way or the other.https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf

stopdiggin

(15,166 posts)
23. Thank you. To you, and other posters that actual bother to read and understand ...
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 02:04 PM
Nov 2025

And then, further - share some of that enlightened status with the rest of DU. You rock.

(knee-jerk reaction probably has its place ... But, I still kind of prefer ... )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

stopdiggin

(15,166 posts)
21. And the answer is ... The delay/suspension could very well have been made permanenet
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:57 PM
Nov 2025

(at the hands of a very conservative court) - were it not for the yeoman efforts made by the very few liberal voices on that panel.

So ... let's try this ... "Liberals on the bench - fighting tooth and nail to make something potentially very bad, slightly less bad by assigning it temporary status." (and winning with those rearguard efforts)

Hope that helps.

lindysalsagal

(22,840 posts)
24. It's just a procedural book-keeping 48 hour delay. It keeps the overall process
Sat Nov 8, 2025, 02:08 PM
Nov 2025

moving efficiently so it doesn't just get bogged-down in relentless legal delays.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Last night Scotus lackeys...