Posted on 09/12/2019 8:09:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
John Sexton wrote last night about yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on the White House’s new asylum rules. By a seven to two margin, the justices agreed that the rule, which essentially acts as a safe third country agreement (without Mexico’s participation) could remain in effect while the case continued through the appeals process.
The two dissenting justices were Sotomayor and Ginsburg, with the former writing the dissent. As Newsweek points out, Sotomayor was rather blunt in her objections, but I can’t help wondering precisely what it was she was objecting to.
“Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. “Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees — and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher — the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law.”
Sotomayor also slammed the Trump administration for requesting the Supreme Court to allow the rule when lower courts ruled against the move. “Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal,” she wrote. “Historically, the Government has made this kind of request rarely; now it does so reflexively.”
“This is an extraordinary request,” Sotomayor continued. “Unfortunately, the Court acquiesces. Because I do not believe the Government has met its weighty burden for such relief, I would deny the stay.”
Okay, I suppose that qualifies as “scathing,” at least in terms of normal SCOTUS language. But what is Sotomayor actually objecting to? Her comments about the Trump administration rushing the rule through without having a period for public comment speak to normal practices. But the President has declared an emergency on the southern border, so some of the usual rules won’t apply. (And how often do the words “normal” and Donald Trump collide in the same sentence anyway?) The point is, she cast her vote based, in part, on tradition rather than law.
Her other objection was in response to the fact that the White House asked the Supremes to let them jump to the head of the line and rule on this before the question had finished making its way through the lower courts where the policy had been blocked. As with the previous point, is she suggesting that the White House can’t (or shouldn’t) make such a request under the law? The fact is that such requests may come along infrequently, but it does happen. And the court has agreed to them in the past.
While this may be a deviation from the normal course of judicial review (a point that CNN was screaming from the rooftops when I woke up this morning), it’s also part of the accepted process when time is of the essence. Nobody forced them to take the case early. That was their decision, and seven justices apparently saw it the President’s way. And let’s not forget that they were reversing the Ninth Circuit once again. You could get the Ninth Circuit to ban Trump from eating breakfast if you wrote a mildly coherent brief.
With that bit of unpleasantness in the rearview mirror, I think the White House needs to clarify a few things about this new policy for us. One of the big questions involves what happens to people showing up at the border and requesting asylum without having applied for it in Mexico first. Previously they would have fallen under the “Remain in Mexico” policy while their case was heard, but now they’ll just be disqualified. Can they then go back and ask Mexico for asylum or would they be immediately deported back to their home country? All of these changes are complicating the procedures that will have to be followed by border security officials. And it gives you the sense that mistakes will probably be made.
It’s called a low IQ dissent.
(the dissent, not the person)
The wise Latino is full of sh*t.
They’ll just quit applying for asylum and try to sneak in wetback style. This rule will reduce the tide a bit but there is such a job and family network already established for these illegals from sea to shining sea that it won’t stop them entirely.
“the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law.”
It’s called an election. It was in 2016. They have consequences. One might think a wise Latina would be aware of that.
[“Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” ]
Just because they are “long standing principles” doesn’t mean that they are CONSTITUTIONAL!
She apparently is of the belief that the judiciary can make policy decisions and that the Congress and Executive branch are lesser branches.
A black robed tyrant, indeed.
Sounds like it was written by a high school liberal - not too wise or impressive.
“Previously they would have fallen under the “Remain in Mexico” policy while their case was heard, but now they’ll just be disqualified. Can they then go back and ask Mexico for asylum or would they be immediately deported back to their home country?”
This is not a question for America. This is a question that must be asked of Mexico.
My POV: The wise unwise Latino is full of sh*t.
Law, like the language in which it of necessity be written, is sometimes a very flexible thing. True, law does depend greatly on established precedent, but the meaning of words of that cited precedent may very well have changed in the intervening years since the precedent was adopted.
In tune with changing times and circumstances, new precedents may have to be determined and applied, then somehow the new precedent must either be reconciled with previous determinations, or the earlier determinations must be revised or even abandoned.
Any competent scholar of law can cite numerous examples of “dead letter” law in the various codes that have been adopted, and also to two or more completely contradictory interpretations of exactly the same language, by various judges over time.
Control the language, and you control the interpretations.
I don't imagine Sotomayor would mind the detention of illegal applicant until the matter is settled...at taxpayers expense of course.
Notice this dissent is very short on law and full of outraged platitudes. More like a blistering rant.
A not-so-wise Latina. Or Latinx? Oh, I’m so confused...
No, Wise-Ass Latina, what is abnormal is U.S. Circuit Courts making rulings and then declaring that they are in effect nationwide. This has led to extensive court shopping on part of the liberals finding judges in Hawaii, etc. who are more than willing to issue injunctions across the entire country. This is why the Trump administration has gone straight to the Supreme Court on matters like this.
I agree with you. If the Republicans were half as curious about credentials as they should be, she would never have made it onto any Federal court. She’s an activist, not a judge.
She SHOULD be embarrassed by this dissent. It doesn’t even meet the incoherent drivel standard.
Which along with $5 will get you a medium latte...
Oh the “wise” Latina...I thought she was the WIDE Latina.
Mine understanding makes much more sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.