SNAP and SCOTUS

FastLane said:
^^^ ^^^^

The DOD is under his control as the Commander in Chief. Trump correctly decided the money should be spent on DEFENDING the country against a foreign invasion.
Click to expand...
The funds were appropriated by Congress for DOD construction. There was and is no invasion. He defiled the Constitution.
 
Damocles said:
The people who are upset over "kings", are suggesting we slavishly follow someone acting like a "king". When Ketanji Brown-Jackson stays your order while they decide, you may want to rethink your position.
Click to expand...
Let them eat cake.

Let’s get that fucking ballroom finished!
 
Damocles said:
Right, it doesn't make sense to leftists when the courts overreach into the purview and powers of the legislative and executive branches and a judge demands them to do what he wants like a king...

I get that it doesn't make sense to you, because the left has problems with introspection and cannot understand hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
You're acting like a frumpy, grumpy old man anymore. Your hard-on against leftists addles your brain.
 
FastLane said:
Trump wants Congress to do their jobs. Congress holds the purse strings not the President and certainly not article 3 judges.
Click to expand...
Congress did it job prior to the shutdown foreseeing challenges in funding during a shut down.

Congress creative a contingency fund (a law) earmarked to continue funding these core things and a court ordered Trump to follow the law.

As TS is pointing out Trump is fighting to delay this and avoid doing his obligation under the law.

Trump is trying to weaponize the food citizens rely upon to try and force Congress' hand.
 
Damocles said:
The people who are upset over "kings", are suggesting we slavishly follow someone acting like a "king". When Ketanji Brown-Jackson stays your order while they decide, you may want to rethink your position.
Click to expand...

What are you referring to above with the Ketanji comment?

Please tell me you are not making the same idiocy mistake @FastLane made here...

My reply showing him why he is lying, stupid and wrong...

QP! said:
NO IDIOT FALSE. You magats need to SHUT UP and listen and you are ALWAYS wrong, because you are stupid.

The stay is a two part process. The Administrative stay done by one single Justice who is basically the mail carrier for each district who CARRIES OVER the issue to the entire court who then puts in place full stay or no stay.

It is that FULL COURT STAY you are referring to where the justices in granting THAT stay, do so on the basis of whether the believe the issue will succeed or fail on the merit.

Every Appellate Court has ONE SINGLE JUSTICE, who puts in place the Administrative Stay, and those Justices DO NOT decide for all other Justices ON THEIR OWN, if this issue is likely to succeed on the merits or not as no one Justice can determine that.
Click to expand...


the distinction between an administrative stay and a full (or merits) stay issued by a Justice or the Supreme Court is subtle but crucial.


Let’s break it down clearly:




Definition:
An administrative stay is a short-term procedural order temporarily pausing the effect of a lower court ruling.
It’s issued to preserve the status quo while the higher court (or the Justice assigned to that circuit) decides whether to grant a full stay or other relief. It does not entail an examination of the merits or likelihood of success.


Purpose:


  • To prevent the lower court decision from taking effect before the Justice or full Court has time to review the stay application in detail.
  • It’s essentially a “time out” — not a ruling on the merits.

Who grants it:


  • A single Justice (the “Circuit Justice” responsible for that circuit, e.g., Justice Alito for the 5th Circuit, Justice Kagan for the 9th, etc.) can issue it unilaterally.
  • It can also be entered by the Court collectively in rare cases.

Duration:


  • Very short — often a few days or until the full Court (or the Circuit Justice) decides on the full stay application.

Legal effect:


  • Temporarily freezes the lower court’s order.
  • Does not signal how the Justice or Court will rule on the merits of the full stay.
  • It’s purely procedural to maintain stability while considering the issue.



Definition:
A full stay (also called a “stay pending appeal” or “stay pending certiorari”) is a formal Court order suspending the lower court’s decision throughout the appeal or until further order.


Purpose:


  • To prevent the lower court ruling from taking effect while the case is being appealed or while certiorari is being sought.
  • It’s issued only if the applicant meets strict standards.

Legal standards (from Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)):


  1. A reasonable probability of success on the merits of the appeal.
  2. Irreparable harm to the applicant if the stay is denied.
  3. No substantial injury to other parties.
  4. The public interest favors the stay.

Who grants it:


  • Can be granted by the single Circuit Justice initially, or the full Supreme Court after reviewing the application.

Duration:


  • Lasts until the appeal or petition for certiorari is resolved, or until the Court lifts it
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hawkeye10 said:
A better argument for you is who makes a call to the Constitution as they give the Constitution the finger?
Click to expand...
To be fair the party members have been doing it for decades

The courts used to have to deal with the Republican party’s election cheating after every election for 35 years until Roberts cleared the table for them

They just cheated more
 
Damocles said:
Right, it doesn't make sense to leftists when the courts overreach into the purview and powers of the legislative and executive branches and a judge demands them to do what he wants like a king...

I get that it doesn't make sense to you, because the left has problems with introspection and cannot understand hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

It's amazing that it takes the Schumer shutdown for SCOTUS to consider reaffirming the separation of powers, but here we are.

Congress has its lane - a wide one.

The Executive has its lane - also wide.

The Courts - a much narrower lane.

A venue-shopped court and a carefully-selected leftist judge with a glaring recusal problem is OK with Trump-hating Democrats trying to shift the blame for SNAP funding onto a man who didn't end it.

It's all about optics going into the midterms.

If the Trump-hating Democrats win a supermajority, they'll impeach POTUS for real in 2027.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top