- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 Shexter
Posted on 6/27/26 at 11:49 am to Shexter
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 on 6/27/26 at 11:51 am to Nikki_T
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 on 6/27/26 at 10:21 pm to Shexter
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!
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 on 6/27/26 at 10:28 pm to biohzrd
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 on 6/27/26 at 11:17 pm to cwil177
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 on 6/28/26 at 10:43 pm to Shexter
LiL EBT and LiL SNAP stay poppin cuh
Where is Mr Ghetto these days btw?
Where is Mr Ghetto these days btw?
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:57 am to Barrister
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 on 6/29/26 at 5:57 am to Barrister
Dp
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 5:58 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 6:56 am to Shexter
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 on 6/29/26 at 7:17 am to Shexter
EBT rules are irrelevant and unenforceable where the EBT crowd shops.
NSFW
NSFW
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 7:20 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:41 am to Shexter
These fed judges have too much power.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:11 am to bayouvette
quote:The judge has the right amount of power. And her ruling is correct.
These fed judges have too much power.
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 on 6/29/26 at 9:14 am to Salviati
it’s only judicial activism when the ruling is against my policy beliefs. It’s sound sober jurisprudence when I agree with it 
Popular
Back to top

0








