General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSonia Sotomayor Just Accused the Supreme Court's Conservatives of Bias Toward the Trump Administrati
Sonia Sotomayor Just Accused the Supreme Courts Conservatives of Bias Toward the Trump Administration
By MARK JOSEPH STERN at Slate
FEB 21, 202010:54 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/sotomayor-trump-wealth-test-bias-dissent.amp
"SNIP....
On Friday evening, by a 54 vote, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administrations wealth test for immigrants to take effect in Illinois. All four liberal justices dissented from the order, which changes relatively little: Thanks to the conservative justices intervention in January, the wealth test was poised to take effect in 49 states, and Fridays vote lets the government apply it in the last state left. Whats most remarkable about the decision is Justice Sonia Sotomayors withering dissent, which calls outwith startling candora distressing pattern: The courts Republican appointees have a clear bias toward the Trump administration.
Trumps wealth test marks a brazen attempt to limit legal immigration by forcing immigrants to prove their financial status to enter, or remain in, the United States. It goes far beyond any statute passed by Congress, forcing immigrants to demonstrate that they will be not a public chargethat is, they wont rely on any public assistance, including Medicaid, housing vouchers, and food stamps. Because the policy departs so dramatically from federal law, several courts blocked its implementation in 2019. In January, however, the Supreme Court allowed the wealth test to take effect over the dissent of all four liberals. The majority did not explain its reasoning. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a concurrence complaining that a district court had blocked it across the country, decrying the rise of nationwide injunctions.
Gorsuchs opinion raised the possibility that the conservative justices disapproved of the scope of the district courts injunction, not the reasoning behind it. If that were true, the conservatives should not have unsettled a narrower injunction limited to Illinois. But they did just that on Friday, once again without explaining themselves. Once again, the liberals dissented, but only Sotomayor wrote separately, in an opinion notable for its caustic tone and candid assessment of her colleagues prejudices. Todays decision follows a now-familiar pattern, Sotomayor began. The Government seeks emergency relief from this Court, asking it to grant a stay where two lower courts have not. The Government insistseven though review in a court of appeals is imminentthat it will suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not grant a stay. And the Court yields. In other words, SCOTUS rewarded the Department of Justice for short-circuiting the appellate process and demanding immediate relief.
But this application is perhaps even more concerning than past ones, Sotomayor continued. Previously, the DOJ professed urgency because of the form of relief granted in the prior casea nationwide injunction. Now theres no nationwide injunction, so theres no apparent urgency. The DOJ cannot state with precision any of the supposed harm that would come from the Illinois-specific injunction, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has scheduled oral argument for next week. Yet SCOTUS lifted the injunction anyway. It is hard, Sotomayor wrote, 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.
......SNIP"
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)If counting votes amounts to "irreparable harm," then everything does.
Sadly, SCOTUS is a partisan body. The Republican majority's rulings are guided by the outcome they desire, not the law.
applegrove
(118,622 posts)that is boiling the frog (us) if we believe it.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)eShirl
(18,490 posts)denem
(11,045 posts)IcyPeas
(21,859 posts)mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)This court will end America.
madaboutharry
(40,209 posts)1. The Supreme Court has been corrupted by political partisans who occupy five of its seats.
2. But her emails.
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)They can scream "court packing" all they want, but THEY broke the court by stealing seats from a sitting POTUS. Fuck them!
maxrandb
(15,323 posts)I get so fucking sick of being told that we need to swallow this bullshit because we need to appeal to Retrumplicans and be cautious.
I guess we better be nice to Retrumplicans or they might do something outrageous like give a presidential medal of freedom to a racist, drugaddled, pedophilic, dipshit talk radio hatemonger.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,328 posts)That doesn't mean every candidate for office must be out to change the world, but they need to be aware of the threats and willing to fight to preserve the rule of law.
Roland99
(53,342 posts)Wishful thinking
*sigh*
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)standingtall
(2,785 posts)for witnesses in an impeachment trial, yet in 2000 he had no problem voting to decide the Presidency. I think Sotomayor nailed it.
onenote
(42,700 posts)He was named to the Court in 2005.
dware
(12,369 posts)SCJ Roberts wasn't on the SC in 2000, so how could he be voting to decide the Presidency?