[DesScorp]

I told you guys about John Roberts. He's the latest Conservative-to-Liberal appointed by a Republican president.

[WWG1WWA]

I do not understand why Ted Cruz put this guy forward for consideration. What on earth was he thinking

[AnotherUnixGeek]

As predicted, John Roberts has moved into the all-important Anthony Kennedy squishy swing vote slot. Because no one can be sure how he'll vote on any issue, he will be assiduously courted by both sides and flattered by the media every time he disappoints conservatives with some outlandish bending of logic.

Note that the Democrats always nominate committed left-wing ideologues who never waver or disappoint liberals. Only conservatives must deal with this nonsense - judges deemed to be "strict constructionists" by some conservative legal foundation who then go on to relentlessly disappoint - Roberts, Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor, and on and on into the past mists of GOP futility.

Conservatives need activist judges of their own not only to counter and roll back the liberal campaign to legislate via the judiciary, but to advance the causes important to conservatives. Playing the "strict constructionist" game is simply an often useless attempt to delay defeat.

[Yaelle]

Wait til your beloved Kavanaugh does the same.

[Salvation]

Sad to see this happening to him.

[daniel1212]

Why is it that it seems that liberals are able to appoint one of their own to the SCOTUS, but Republicans are so often hit and miss?

[nobamanomore]

So far, he’s 100% Democrat!

[Impy]

He’s not a liberal but he’s a certainly a swing vote, far too often.

Gorsuch and Kav voted the right way.

[Mr. Mojo]

There are 3 conservatives on the Supreme Court. (Kavanaugh is a precedentist, and Roberts is a full-fledged liberal). For a reliably conservative court, both Ginsburg AND Breyer need to be replaced by originalists. Long way to go.

[timestax]

John Roberts joined the liberal justices in a 5–4 decision to maintain the block on President Donald Trump...

This

[dajeeps]

Before taking out the figurative “hatchet” I did some digging through this to see if I can understand what’s going on here.

In the proclamation that Trump signed, it says that aliens entering the US unlawfully through the southern border, rather than though a port of entry, will be ineligible to be granted asylum pursuant to a regulation promulgated by the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security, but may be eligible for other forms of protection from prosecution and torture if they enter through a port of entry.

INA Paragraph 1:
Sec. 208. (a) Authority to Apply for Asylum.-
(1) In general. - Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).
Paragraph 2(C)
(C) Additional limitations. - The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).

The court decision says, among other things:
“… Examining the validity of the rule, the panel concluded that the Rule is not likely to be found in accordance with 8 U.S.C. §1158(a)(1).That section provides that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival...), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section.”
“The panel noted that, rather than restricting who may apply for asylum, the rule of decision facially conditions only who is eligible to receive asylum. The panel observed that 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(C) grants the Attorney General the power to set “additional limitations and conditions” beyond those listed in §1158(b)(2)(A) on when an alien will be “ineligible for asylum,” but only when “consistent” with the section. Despite his facial invocation of § 1158(b)(2)(C), the panel concluded that the Attorney General’s rule of decision is inconsistent with § 1158(a)(1), explaining that it is the hollowest of rights that an alien must be allowed to apply for asylum regardless of whether she arrived through a port of entry if another rule makes her categorically ineligible for asylum based on precisely that fact…”

I think what happened here is that Trump’s order rendered people who crossed the border illegally ineligible to be granted asylum – period – even if they subsequently went to a port of entry to apply, which probably isn’t consistent with 8 U.S.C. §1158(a)(1), and the courts tagged him on it.

I’m not here to defend Roberts even if it appears that way. But it is important to be aware of and address where the real problem lies; and it appears, to me at least, that the law providing for an asylum claim with very few limitations is somewhat problematic and is causing the chaos down south. I would guess that if illegal immigration is a real problem in your mind, the reason people can come here, however it is they come, and end up sticking around is right here in 8 U.S.C. §1158(a)(1).