- 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: Obama judge Amy Berman Jackson just ruled that SNAP must continue to cover junk food
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:46 am to the808bass
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:46 am to the808bass
quote:
It’s referring to the program being a supplement to people buying their own food. It assumes that people will also be purchasing their own food that this program will be used to supplement.
That and "Nutritional", which is the most important word. That excludes junk. The SNAP program says it is meant to be used for healthy foods.
0
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:05 am to wfallstiger
quote:
The entire Judiciary needs a Come to See Jesus Flushing....unbelievably corrupt
Or a tarring and feathering.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:11 am to L.A.
So what was her actual legal opinion? shite is crazy!
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:24 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Apathy is such an admirable quality.
It has nothing to do with apathy. It has everything to do with seeing some random X user pushing a narrative on social media without providing details.
I’m not arguing that providing the details would change anyone’s mind about the narrative. After doing a little bit of my own digging on the situation, I still won’t claim to have enough knowledge to decide whether or not I agree with this specific judge’s decision. And I really don’t care enough to put in the time and effort. I have done enough research to understand that it’s not as simple as “Bad Hombre” on X would like me to believe.
What I do care about is the divisiveness that people on all sides of the political spectrum of social media continue to foster by pushing political narratives without including the facts, whether intentional or out of pure laziness.
That stated, I am certainly not the righteous social media police. Trying to do that would be an exercise in futility. But when it’s easy to spot misinformation / disinformation, sometimes I will call it out.
By the way, I also understand that I am not perfect, and I am not completely above the laziness part of it. Please, call me out on it if you find me doing it, too.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:27 am to dgnx6
quote:
Sorry that folks don't want to subsidize your fat arse.
Thankfully I don’t need anyone to do that. But the struggle is real. I could lose about 20.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:42 am to L.A.
Judge rules death by sugar for the poors
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:15 pm to theballguy
quote:
I think we're all tired of that. Fatigue.
Then go someplace where they don't have it.
Delta's waiting.
I think the judge is a moron, too, but my response to a moron judge making a moronic ruling isn't to gut the entire judiciary.
That's a moronic response to a moronic judge making a moronic ruling.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:28 pm to L.A.
I'm used to seeing videos on X showing blacks loading their carts w/ junk and bragging about how it was paid for w/ EBT.
Yesterday, I saw it for myself. Was in a grocery store to pick up a couple of things on the way home, and in the check out next to me there was a very obese, very pregnant "person of color". She was wearing daisy dukes stretch shorts and a top that barely covered her belly. Wish I could un-see that. Anyway, her cart had, among other things, 2 cases of beer, several 6 packs of soda, several huge bags of chips, some Oreos, and some boxed macaroni and cheese. No dairy. No produce. No meat.
Yesterday, I saw it for myself. Was in a grocery store to pick up a couple of things on the way home, and in the check out next to me there was a very obese, very pregnant "person of color". She was wearing daisy dukes stretch shorts and a top that barely covered her belly. Wish I could un-see that. Anyway, her cart had, among other things, 2 cases of beer, several 6 packs of soda, several huge bags of chips, some Oreos, and some boxed macaroni and cheese. No dairy. No produce. No meat.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:43 pm to CR4090
quote:
So what was her actual legal opinion? shite is crazy!
Wow, 5 pages in and finally someone asks about the actual issue at hand.
I didn't find the opinion, but a Politico story on it:
Politico story
Apparently the issue is that the federal law defines "food" and administrative changes by the executive branch cannot override that.
So Congress needs to change the law.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:55 pm to BigJim
Thanks
Totally ridiculous that shite is considered food.
quote:
Her ruling applies to Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.
Totally ridiculous that shite is considered food.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 1:53 pm to CR4090
quote:
So what was her actual legal opinion? shite is crazy!
No legal opinion. She just ruled that the Trump Administration has to keep allowing junk food to be purchased with SNAP. No reasoning needed.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:47 pm to BigJim
quote:
Apparently the issue is that the federal law defines "food" and administrative changes by the executive branch cannot override that.
So Congress needs to change the law.
So... interesting enough...I did some research. If my research is correct, the actual law creating the snap program did not define food. It was defined in the CFR
quote:
7 CFR 271.2 provides official definitions of terms used in the administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
7 CFR 271.2 is a section of the Code of Federal Regulations that defines key terms for SNAP program administration under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. These definitions ensure consistent interpretation and application of program rules across federal and state agencies (7 CFR 271.2)
It is defined by the agency running snap. I think that program is under the executive branch and, if memeory is correct, a similar case was determined by scotus about the ability to change those regulations.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:50 pm to L.A.
What the frick
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:51 pm to L.A.
What a pile of shite she is
Posted on 6/25/26 at 8:13 pm to ninthward
Spoiler - the answer is yes.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 6/25/26 at 8:19 pm to L.A.
I think they should limit amount of junk food but allow it. Like no more than $10 per month.
We ALL need junk food every now and then.
We ALL need junk food every now and then.
Posted on 6/25/26 at 8:51 pm to wfallstiger
quote:
The entire Judiciary needs a Come to See Jesus Flushing....unbelievably corrupt
Congress could change almost everything about the Judiciary if it wanted to do so.
Page 5 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News