Sotomayor's hissy-fit blistering dissent, that Repub jurors have "Trump bias"

[dukkha]

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a scathing rebuke of the court's decision to allow the Trump administration to enforce its "public charge" rule in the state of Illinois, limiting which non-citizens can obtain visas to enter the U.S.

Sotomayor's problems with the conservative majority's ruling went far beyond this case, claiming that it was symptomatic of the court's habit of siding with the government when they seek emergency stays of rulings against them.

"It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it,"

Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.
[/QUOTE]
This particular case, Wolf v. Cook County, deals with the Trump administration's expansion of situations where the government can deny visas to non-citizens looking to enter. U.S. Federal law already says that officials can take into account whether an applicant is likely to become a "public charge," which government guidance has said refers to someone "primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.” In the past, non-cash benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), forms of Medicaid, and certain housing assistance did not count, but the Department of Homeland Security issued its new public charge rule in 2019 which did include these benefits.

The new rule was already blocked with a nationwide injunction in a separate case, so the Supreme Court's granting of a stay in the Cook County case only lets the government enforce the rule in the state of Illinois while litigation continues.

That narrow scope, plus the fact that the 7th Circuit is scheduled to review the Illinois injunction in the coming week, led Sotomayor to believe that the government was not at risk of suffering significant harm that warranted the Supreme Court putting the injunction on hold.

[dukkha]

Sotomayor went on to claim that the Supreme Court has been overly accommodating when it comes to stay applications, but mainly just for the Trump administration. In contrast, she pointed out, they tend to deny stay applications for executions.


"I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decisionmaking process that this Court must strive to protect," she said.

Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg threw his support behind Sotomayor in a Saturday tweet.
Recent history, however, shows that the conservative majority has been anything but in lockstep with conservative politics. Last year, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch -- both Trump appointees -- drew attention for siding with the court's liberal contingent on a number of cases.

Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, had perhaps the most notorious break from the conservative ranks when he ruled in favor of Obamacare in 2012.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sot...administration

[dukkha]

what a dumb ass -she's the most unqualified ever. Equating a stay in policy to a stay in executions is a false
dichotomy .
Executions are rarely stayed -the guilt is proven
Policy challenges ( like the constant running to the 9th) are an attempt to block legitimate executive reforms

She should be concerned nothing Trump does goes without being hung up in district courts, which issue nationwide stays

[Celticguy]

Suck it senorita, stop being a caricature

[Bigdog]

Sotomayor is a RACIST and a bigot.

She even admitted it when she labeled herself a proud Latina. She should be impeached.

[Nordberg]

The Roberts court is the most pro-corporate, anti-worker of all time. The Repub choices work for the plutocrats. The Repub appointed judges have been deciding for the ruling class and for some reason. Repubs love that.

[Bigdog]

The Roberts court is the most pro-corporate, anti-worker of all time. The Repub choices work for the plutocrats. The Repub appointed judges have been deciding for the ruling class and for some reason. Repubs love that.

You're a fucking liar, you little fascist turd.

[dukkha]

she's a dumb ass -equating a stay of policy with a stay of execution ( obviously not the same)

[dukkha]

whether an applicant is likely to become a "public charge," which government guidance has said refers to someone "primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.”

In the past, non-cash benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), forms of Medicaid, and certain housing assistance did not count, but the Department of Homeland Security issued its new public charge rule in 2019 which did include these benefits.

cash or non-cash benefits doesn't matter ( pending appeal) - it's still costs to keep these people going.
If you are coming as as a "public charge" we don't need or want you

[Bobb]

Sotomayor and the Supreme Court Jews have nothing but contempt for the Constitution. It's hypocritical of her to accuse others of bias.

[Grokmaster]

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a scathing rebuke of the court's decision to allow the Trump administration to enforce its "public charge" rule in the state of Illinois, limiting which non-citizens can obtain visas to enter the U.S.

Sotomayor's problems with the conservative majority's ruling went far beyond this case, claiming that it was symptomatic of the court's habit of siding with the government when they seek emergency stays of rulings against them.

[/B]Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

This particular case, Wolf v. Cook County, deals with the Trump administration's expansion of situations where the government can deny visas to non-citizens looking to enter. U.S. Federal law already says that officials can take into account whether an applicant is likely to become a "public charge," which government guidance has said refers to someone "primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.” In the past, non-cash benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), forms of Medicaid, and certain housing assistance did not count, but the Department of Homeland Security issued its new public charge rule in 2019 which did include these benefits.

The new rule was already blocked with a nationwide injunction in a separate case, so the Supreme Court's granting of a stay in the Cook County case only lets the government enforce the rule in the state of Illinois while litigation continues.

That narrow scope, plus the fact that the 7th Circuit is scheduled to review the Illinois injunction in the coming week, led Sotomayor to believe that the government was not at risk of suffering significant harm that warranted the Supreme Court putting the injunction on hold.[/QUOTE]

YES!! EVERYONE MUST SERVE THE LEFT'S AGENDA, COMRADES!!!!


DID YOU NOT KNOW THIS!!!

[jimmymccready]

The Dems will use this as a basis for packing the court next year.