Saturday, November 08, 2025

Trump admin says it faces more harm than those without food

There is a paragraph on page 22 of the Trump administration's appeal of a federal judge's requirement that it make full November SNAP payments that has to be seen to be believed. The opening sentence asserts that "the district court's order threatens significant and irreparable harm to the government which outweighs any claimed injury to plaintiffs."

Posted by A_Friend at 10:15 PM | 5 COMMENTS | permalink

More

In plain English, the Justice Department is telling the court that it would hurt the federal government more to comply with a judge's order requiring full food stamp payments than it would hurt millions of low-income Americans to potentially starve.

Let's simplify this further: the government is arguing that once the money is spent, it can't be unspent (and that would be horrible). But the hungry can't eat tomorrow (and that's not as bad). That is the contention.

Comments

In plain English, the Justice Department is telling the court that it would hurt the federal government more to comply with a judge's order requiring full food stamp payments than it would hurt millions of low-income Americans to potentially starve.

Let's simplify this further: the government is arguing that once the money is spent, it can't be unspent (and that would be horrible). But the hungry can't eat tomorrow (and that's not as bad). That is the contention.

#1 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-11-08 10:15 PM

In a 40-page filing to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, the administration insisted that being forced to spend money Congress has already appropriated is a graver injury than the hunger and disruption that would follow from withholding it. Friday night, the administration filed a nearly identical emergency stay request with the Supreme Court, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a temporary pause that will remain in effect until the circuit court issues a judgment on the matter.

#2 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-11-08 10:16 PM

Twice, a Rhode Island federal judge, John J. McConnell Jr., agreed, ordering the government to draw on existing accounts to cover the gap. Twice, the administration appealed, contending that the judiciary had usurped Congress's spending power by directing the executive branch to find the money.

#3 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-11-08 10:16 PM

And THIS is the exact same Trump that the BJ character seems to believe that Democrats should negotiate with, vis-a-vis healthcare.

An administration that says, in open court...

Let's simplify this further: the government is arguing that once the money is spent, it can't be unspent (and that would be horrible). But the hungry can't eat tomorrow (and that's not as bad). That is the contention.
And THIS is who this BJ character says Democrats should negotiate with.

PS... thanks, Lamplighter for the wonderful HTML lesson! :-)

#4 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-11-08 10:21 PM

Talk about "enemies of the people."
MAGAts revel in cruelty towards others.
It lets them try and flex their man boobs.

#6 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2025-11-09 07:21 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Soaring ACA Premiums Jeopardizing Lives (194 comments)

Speaker Johnson's Vacation Must End (64 comments)

Sandwich Thrower Acquitted (55 comments)

FAA to Cut 10% of Flights Due to Shutdown (30 comments)

What a Reporter Found When She Investigated US Military Strikes on Venezuel (25 comments)

Nearly 50% of Floridians Considering Moving (24 comments)

DOJ tells Republicans that Epstein Files Even Worse for Trump: Report (22 comments)

ADL Explains Its Mamdani Monitor Initiative (19 comments)

Kentucky Official's Obvious Election Reminder to Residents (14 comments)

Marjorie Taylor-Greene Mulling Campaign for POTUS (14 comments)