Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, November 08, 2025

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."

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

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

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

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 | Reply

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 | Reply

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 | Reply

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 | Reply

That fat retard needs to die now

#5 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-11-09 12:43 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort