Liberals Always Cry When They Lose
Feb 23, 2020 10:21:57 #
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.
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 the 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.
The liberal justice expressed concern that a majority of her colleagues had no problem with this. She explained that it is unusual for an administration to seek stays against injunctions with this sort of frequency, yet it is becoming the new normal.
"Claiming one emergency after another, the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each," she wrote. "And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow. Indeed, its behavior relating to the public-charge rule in particular shows how much its own definition of irreparable harm has shifted.”
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.
KAVANAUGH AND GORSUCH DEFY DEM PREDICTIONS WITH INDEPENDENT STREAK
"I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decisionmaking process that this Court must strive to protect," she said.
Democratic p**********l hopeful Mike Bloomberg threw his support behind Sotomayor in a Saturday tweet.
"Justice Sotomayor is right to sound the alarm," Bloomberg tweeted Saturday. "If Trump wins in November, the Supreme Court essentially will become a rubber stamp for his assault on immigrants, health care and e******y."
Mike Bloomberg
✔
@MikeBloomberg
Justice Sotomayor is right to sound the alarm. If Trump wins in November, the Supreme Court essentially will become a rubber stamp for his assault on immigrants, health care and e******y.
The stakes couldn't be higher. https://qz.com/1806689/justice-sonia-sotomayor-calls-out-supreme-court-in-sharp-dissent/ …
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/sotomayor-issues-blistering-dissent-says-republican-appointed-justices-have-bias-toward-trump-administration
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.
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 the 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.
The liberal justice expressed concern that a majority of her colleagues had no problem with this. She explained that it is unusual for an administration to seek stays against injunctions with this sort of frequency, yet it is becoming the new normal.
"Claiming one emergency after another, the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each," she wrote. "And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow. Indeed, its behavior relating to the public-charge rule in particular shows how much its own definition of irreparable harm has shifted.”
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.
KAVANAUGH AND GORSUCH DEFY DEM PREDICTIONS WITH INDEPENDENT STREAK
"I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decisionmaking process that this Court must strive to protect," she said.
Democratic p**********l hopeful Mike Bloomberg threw his support behind Sotomayor in a Saturday tweet.
"Justice Sotomayor is right to sound the alarm," Bloomberg tweeted Saturday. "If Trump wins in November, the Supreme Court essentially will become a rubber stamp for his assault on immigrants, health care and e******y."
Mike Bloomberg
✔
@MikeBloomberg
Justice Sotomayor is right to sound the alarm. If Trump wins in November, the Supreme Court essentially will become a rubber stamp for his assault on immigrants, health care and e******y.
The stakes couldn't be higher. https://qz.com/1806689/justice-sonia-sotomayor-calls-out-supreme-court-in-sharp-dissent/ …
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/sotomayor-issues-blistering-dissent-says-republican-appointed-justices-have-bias-toward-trump-administration
Feb 23, 2020 10:29:39 #
Feb 23, 2020 10:33:05 #
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Dictators appoint allies-------
Right you are: That's exactly how Sotomayor got there.....
Feb 23, 2020 10:54:09 #
Coos Bay Tom
Loc: coos bay oregon
American Vet wrote:
Right you are: That's exactly how Sotomayor got there.....
Dictators get o*******wn too
Feb 23, 2020 12:51:40 #
Feb 23, 2020 19:39:11 #
Coos Bay Tom
Loc: coos bay oregon
American Vet wrote:
Yep: We booted one out November 2016.
Nice try Obama was not a dictator because of the affordable care act. You also know that a president only gets 2 terms. Apparently you are indifferent to the current administration---loyalty oaths-- purges-- takeover of departments--retaliation--cruelty--etc..-----
Feb 23, 2020 21:55:13 #
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Nice try Obama was not a dictator because of the affordable care act. You also know that a president only gets 2 terms. Apparently you are indifferent to the current administration---loyalty oaths-- purges-- takeover of departments--retaliation--cruelty--etc..-----
"I have a pen and I have a telephone"......
Loyalty oath? So are you claiming that President Trump demanded people raise their right hand, etc.?
Purges? He should have done it sooner. One 'purges' "to make free of something unwanted". Not a thing wrong with that. My opinion is he should have done it sooner.
Retaliation? See "purge". Also see "obama' IRS targeted conservative groups". Also see "Justice Department's subpoena of New York Times reporter James Risen".
Cruelty? Maybe you have a picture of President Trump kicking a puppy? Or maybe a picture of 'children in cages'? Ooh - my bad - that famous picture was from 2014......
Feb 24, 2020 01:53:03 #
Coos Bay Tom
Loc: coos bay oregon
American Vet wrote:
"I have a pen and I have a telephone"...... (show quote)
Like I thought you would reply-- no use arguing the point with you.-- Like all supporters you go along with all the obvios abuses---
Feb 24, 2020 06:03:34 #
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Like I thought you would reply-- no use arguing the point with you.-- Like all supporters you go along with all the obvios abuses---
I did reply. You just didn't like the response. And, of course, you see the futility of arguing since you cannot refute what I posted.
As with most l*****t, you resort to the "you are just not smart enough to really understand" stance.
No problem. Have a good day.
Feb 24, 2020 08:27:03 #
Coos Bay Tom
Loc: coos bay oregon
American Vet wrote:
Funny how nobody else talked to you.--I did reply. You just didn't like the response. And, of course, you see the futility of arguing since you cannot refute what I posted.
As with most l*****t, you resort to the "you are just not smart enough to really understand" stance.
No problem. Have a good day.
As with most l*****t, you resort to the "you are just not smart enough to really understand" stance.
No problem. Have a good day.
Feb 24, 2020 09:53:17 #
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Funny how nobody else talked to you.--
Mainly because he was doing just fine dispelling your l*****t liberal hogwash !!!!!!
Feb 24, 2020 10:46:08 #
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Nice try Obama was not a dictator because of the affordable care act. You also know that a president only gets 2 terms. Apparently you are indifferent to the current administration---loyalty oaths-- purges-- takeover of departments--retaliation--cruelty--etc..-----
To whom was it affordable? Just the welfare rats! Everyone else had to pay triple to cover them!
Feb 24, 2020 10:47:25 #
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Like I thought you would reply-- no use arguing the point with you.-- Like all supporters you go along with all the obvios abuses---
And you and your ilk continue to close ur heart and mind to the t***h!
Feb 24, 2020 13:31:17 #
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Nice try Obama was not a dictator because of the affordable care act. You also know that a president only gets 2 terms. Apparently you are indifferent to the current administration---loyalty oaths-- purges-- takeover of departments--retaliation--cruelty--etc..-----
I heard drs. complaining after O. invited them to the south lawn.
This was when he wanted ACA.
They didn't know why they were there.
He ordered them to put on drs. white coats.
He then claimed they were there because they agreed with him on ACA.
He was a liar!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.