With this extension of the administrative stay, the Roberts Court is exhibiting moral depravity. 4/4
Discussion
Loading...
Discussion
Note, what is at issue with the administrative stay is whether the Trump regime must feed people who are legally entitled to be fed while the Roberts Court waits to see if a) they can duck deciding whether to uphold a lower court’s enforcement order of its original injunction to the regime to pay Nov SNAP benefits and maybe b) start considering the merits of the dispute over the enforcement order. 2/
The Roberts Court could have lifted the administrative stay and taken a week or longer to do (a) and/or (b). In the meantime, people would have been getting their full SNAP benefits for November. Instead, the Roberts Court prefers that people suffer hunger while the Court goes about its business. 3/
@heidilifeldman I thought maybe that by stepping in, Justice Jackson had a strategy, but damned if I can tell what that might be.
@beckett I argued previously that her grant of a two day stay was for nought. All it did was prevent any money flowing to the states in whatever window of time was available before the full Court granted a longer stay.
With this extension of the administrative stay, the Roberts Court is exhibiting moral depravity. 4/4
I've been saying that after we dislodge the fascists, we need to expand the Court to 13 seats to create a 7-6 liberal majority.
With almost every new ruling from #SCOTUS I'm leaning more toward "Let's arrest the majority right away, and let the #InternationalCriminalCourt sort them out."
bonfire.cafe
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
Automatic federation enabled