Started By
Message

re: Federal judge rules government can't prevent using SNAP to purchase energy drinks and soda

Posted on 6/27/26 at 11:49 am to
Posted by Riverside
Member since Jul 2022
11261 posts
Posted on 6/27/26 at 11:49 am to
In related news, yesterday we learned that some horrible parents allowed their 7 year old to eat himself to death and die weighing 255 pounds.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
24261 posts
Posted on 6/27/26 at 11:51 am to
quote:

Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI), can be accessed by withdrawing at select ATMs,


I had something to say… had to delete. I’ll just leave it at FTGE.
Posted by Lickitty Split
Inside
Member since Apr 2017
4194 posts
Posted on 6/27/26 at 10:21 pm to
It’s the supplemental nutrition assistance program not the food program.

This bitch is stupid but Congress should change the law. There’s not reason people on SNAP should be buying food that is a certain price or above per serving nor should things considered candy or energy drinks be allowed to be purchased.

Do something Congress!
Posted by cwil177
Baton Rouge
Member since Jun 2011
30018 posts
Posted on 6/27/26 at 10:28 pm to
quote:

No, bc then you’ll pay more on the arse end in all the “free” medical care they’ll receive for all the health issues this food causes!!!!

The amount that we spend in Medicaid costs for these people is magnitudes more than we spend on SNAP benefits. It’s a great example of misguided government spending causing more downstream costs than if they had done nothing at all.
Posted by Lickitty Split
Inside
Member since Apr 2017
4194 posts
Posted on 6/27/26 at 11:17 pm to
Or it’s a great guide to government spending because how else can we keep this economy rolling except causing inflation in junk food and healthcare.
Posted by PGAOLDBAWNevahBroke
Member since Oct 2025
552 posts
Posted on 6/28/26 at 10:43 pm to
LiL EBT and LiL SNAP stay poppin cuh

Where is Mr Ghetto these days btw?
Posted by wallowinit
Louisiana
Member since Dec 2006
18138 posts
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:57 am to
quote:

Lief's hard - - - let me people have a Coke

Who is saying these people cannot have a Coke?

Do they need permission from me to have a Coke if I’m not paying for it?

Is this how it is?

If so, these people are not much more than cattle that are needy and unruly pets and not worth anything at all.
Posted by wallowinit
Louisiana
Member since Dec 2006
18138 posts
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:57 am to
Dp
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 5:58 am
Posted by Hangit
The Green Swamp
Member since Aug 2014
47346 posts
Posted on 6/29/26 at 6:56 am to
Didn't SCOTUS rule that these wee federal judges were no longer able to set policy designed for the Executive branch? I thought that came right after they told the swamp creatures in different agencies to stop making laws.
Posted by Disco Ball
Denham Springs
Member since May 2025
1769 posts
Posted on 6/29/26 at 7:17 am to
EBT rules are irrelevant and unenforceable where the EBT crowd shops.
NSFW

This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 7:20 am
Posted by bayouvette
Raceland
Member since Oct 2005
5944 posts
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:41 am to
These fed judges have too much power.
Posted by Salviati
Member since Apr 2006
7809 posts
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:11 am to
quote:

These fed judges have too much power.
The judge has the right amount of power. And her ruling is correct.

The POLICY of limiting SNAP benefits to more nutritious items and prohibiting its use for non-nutritious items is good POLICY.

Even this judge agrees with this good POLICY.

The POLICY was created by agencies. The agencies drafted and promulgated REGULATORY GUIDANCE to put the POLICY into effect.

Agencies, however, are constrained by the language of the STATUTE. Congress enacted the STATUTE that created the SNAP program. The agencies' REGULATORY GUIDANCE concerning the POLICY must comply with Congress's STATUTE.

In this case, the REGULATORY GUIDANCE does not comply with the STATUTE.

That is the Court's ruling. Any other ruling would be judicial activism. Courts are not supposed to rule in favor of POLICY they like. They are supposed to interpret and follow the STATUTE.


For completeness:

The REGULATORY GUIDANCE must comply with the STATUTE.

The STATUTE must comply with the CONSTITUTION.

This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 9:18 am
Posted by cgrand
HAMMOND
Member since Oct 2009
50249 posts
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:14 am to
it’s only judicial activism when the ruling is against my policy beliefs. It’s sound sober jurisprudence when I agree with it
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram