fp.

Conversely, today's stacked SCotUS has been gifting an unprecedented 90% win rate. Equally unprecedented has been the court's refusal to explain rulings and the impossibly short deliberation periods. : https://www.courtaccountability.org/shadow-docket-analysis

smallerize•3mo ago

That's a little less relevant since this was from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

WarOnPrivacy•3mo ago

It's context like no other in our history; it transcends bias and ideology.

A 90% acquiescence rate is so foundationally unhealthy, I argue that all decisions being made in the shade of it - should be considered with it in mind.

CamperBob2•3mo ago

There's more to it than that, apparently. I'm unclear on the details, but it's not as simple as saying she supports what Trump is trying to do.

deeg•3mo ago

Here's one possible (probable?) explanation for Brown's reasoning. Tl;Dr is she's trying to put pressure on the 6 gop judges to respond quickly.

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf

ungreased0675•3mo ago

Perhaps Congress could fund SNAP payments by passing a budget.

SlightlyLeftPad•3mo ago

There was never any intention to do that.

deeg•3mo ago

My understanding is that Snap is already funded. That's why the lower court ruled that it must be paid.

SilverElfin•3mo ago

This is an administrative stay. Because the administration says it has the means to only partially fund the program (due to the shutdown), this got kicked back to the lower courts to consider if partial funding was sufficient for them to consider the matter closed. If not, it’ll ultimately be appealed back to this court again. But right now, all they’re doing is saying “hey things have changed since you issued your order, re-rule on this case”.