Read Sonya Sotomayor’s “Blistering” Dissent On Asylum Rules

Hotair ^ | 09/12/2019 | Jazz Shaw

[Manly Warrior]

Asylum Laws are still in effect- basically meaning 1) one applies for asylum from a menu of reasons at a US Embassy or consulate in a foreign country, 2) then they are either approved or denied, and 3) then they come to the US....

The left thinks that the cart before the horsey thing works for everything.

[Political Junkie Too]

the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input

She's kidding, right?

What constitutes "public input" in this case? The fact that Congress has repeatedly debated and not passed immigration reforms? The turnout at Trump rallies? The fact that Trump was elected over Clinton?

What is Sotomayor waiting for? Is the only valid "public opinion" a successful bill from Congress that goes her way? A Democrat winning the White House? Something else?

-PJ

[central_va]

Judges should be allowed to make law when they don’t like the current law. I get it.

[central_va]

Judges should be allowed to make law when they don’t like the current law. I get it.

[drypowder]

refugees who seek shelter from persecution

that's the democrat talking point, it's a lie. They know it and we all know it. Not surprising coming from an Obozo appointee.

[BlackbirdSST]

She SHOULD be embarrassed by this dissent. It doesn’t even meet the incoherent drivel standard.

Authentic Frontier Gibberish?

[Alberta's Child]

This is what happens when you put Manuel Noriega on the U.S. Supreme Court.

[HamiltonJay]

She’s an activist, not a Jurist... the only upside to her being on the court is her health issues will make sure she’s not going to be another Ginsburg.

[Maris Crane]

Who wants to read this?

[Alberta's Child]

I’m surprised Kagan and Breyer voted in the affirmative on this ruling.

At one time I would have been, but I read a surprisingly frank article here on FR a few years ago about the large number of 8-1 and 9-0 decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court that never make the news.

Apparently, SCOTUS cases that involve rulings on the proper role and authority among the branches of the U.S. government tends to draw a strong consensus among the justices. Interestingly, a 7-2 ruling in a case like this is unusually close.

[Jeff Chandler]

I don't imagine Sotomayor would mind the detention of illegal applicant until the matter is settled

So that the illegals could flood the borders and overwhelm the system. Then the Rats could decry the horrible conditions of their detainment.

[txnativegop]

(are you absolutely sure?)

[txnativegop]

I guess she really is that stupid!

[billakay]

I thought this too, but apparently it is incorrect. The only time a person can apply for admission at an embassy or consulate is if they are already categorized as a refugee by some international body (this would mostly include war and disaster refugees). Even then, this is an application for resettlement rather than asylum itself. Regular applications for asylum can only be made once a person is on US territory.

[Joe Boucher]

The worthless pussy republican senators should have give this piece or legal horse crap the Bork treatment when they were discussing her sorry ass.
Instead they played nice and bent over back words to make fools of themselves by kissing the backside then overwhelmingly voted for her for the supremes.
I wouldn’t hire this vermin pick up my dog poop

[_Jim]

re: "Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution"

So what. What does our written law have to say on this?

[Savage Beast]

"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."

Well...Mexico establishes an agent there with the authority to say no to their asylum request. Then they proceed into the USA.

What's changed?

[SuperLuminal]

"...a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,..."

A few questions...

1. How "long" is the "longstanding" in this case? Does it extend all the way back to the day the Constitution was approved?
2. Currently, from which foreign country and which migrant invaders are at our borders because of "persecution"? Does being broke or not having two TVs qualify as being "persecuted? (Have you seen crowds of theses invaders wearing nothing but tattered rags and having no shoes? Are the migrants looking like starving remnants of the German concentration camps?) For those who are actually "persecuted", are they mostly drug dealers, murderers, or terrorists persecuted because of their criminal actions?

In fact, for the past decade, the claims/requests for "asylum" have exploded only as a result the large crowd of demoncrat congressmen and activists who have gone to Mexico or the southern border and proposed and encouraged the bogus claim of the need for asylum as a method to cheat their way into the U.S. and onto the demoncrat-voter roles...

[utax]

Deport the wide latina and the racist old hag who sleeps on the job.

[Manly Warrior]

That’s fine. The process starts in some far off place with interaction between the aggrieved person and the US, not “hi, here I am, glad I found you guys, oh me? I am applying for asylum, oh and yeah, Welfare and SSI and snap and health care; btw, do you know where I can get in state tuition too?”.....