←back to thread

46 points jrflowers | 9 comments | | HN request time: 1.014s | source | bottom
1. hdlothia ◴[] No.45777519[source]
Biden and Obama appointees ruling against the admin, probably to be overturned by republican nominated judges. Have judges gotten more partisan recently or has it always been like this.

Hopefully some people at least get money for food in the mean time.

replies(4): >>45777584 #>>45777669 #>>45777807 #>>45778014 #
2. Acrobatic_Road ◴[] No.45777584[source]
Since SNAP is a national program you can file a lawsuit anywhere. The groups that sue the Trump admin know this. That's why they filed suit in Rhode Island which is part of the 1st circuit where you are almost guaranteed to get a liberal judge.
3. CiscoCodex ◴[] No.45777669[source]
Ugh, I might just be adding to the frustration here. But honestly I don’t understand why we’re not talking about how bad partisan politics is. It baffles my mind that we agreed a total population percentage of about 0.00015609% will choose our countries fate. I get that higher numbers don’t necessarily translate to efficiency, but California Republicans aren’t the same as Massachusetts Republicans and the same goes to Democrats.
replies(1): >>45778306 #
4. dragonwriter ◴[] No.45777807[source]
> Biden and Obama appointees ruling against the admin, probably to be overturned by republican nominated judges.

These two judges were Biden- and Obama-appointed judges but Trump had been losing on executive overreach before Reagan-, Bush- (both) and even Trump-appointed district judges fairly regularly, too.

5. SilverElfin ◴[] No.45778014[source]
It has become like this slowly over time but it is still pretty recent. Within the last 20 years. It became especially bad starting in 2016. I feel like that election caused a lot of institutions to start becoming partisan and also to start abusing every power or loophole or whatever.
replies(2): >>45778356 #>>45778987 #
6. yesco ◴[] No.45778306[source]
This is precisely why the federal government shouldn't have as much power as it currently does in my opinion. Every layer of indirection is reduction in representation. If not for the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 it wouldn't be as bad, but as things currently are, I see polarization as inevitable.
replies(1): >>45780572 #
7. Stephen_0xFF ◴[] No.45778356[source]
The last 20 years because of social media. The algorithmic echo chambers that people have created with their feeds has increased the divide.
8. lazyasciiart ◴[] No.45778987[source]
Nope, long before that. It just took a long time for the results to become clear. Mitch McConnell has basically spent his entire political career working towards exactly where we are now: every branch of the government controlled by republicans.
9. redserk ◴[] No.45780572{3}[source]
Do recognize that we already have many, many levers to pull to remove an administration that is not acting in the best interest of the people

The problem is:

1) We never actually want to pull the levers

2) While some early politicians expressed concern about party politics, for nearly 250 years there have been very few actual changes that recognize the harm of very cohesive party politics. If anything, changes were made to further entrench the system (the competitive game of admitting states in the 19th century, rules that only recognize 2 major political parties at the state and federal level, etc)