Posted on 02/23/2020 8:11:13 AM PST by PROCON
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Oh I see but, dont pay your taxes and the givernment can deny you a passport...
The vote cheating on senate seats will be astonishing this cycle. The deep and insidious satte, as part of the globalist mastery must stop the Trump changes to the judiciary, so Turtle must be desposed from the majority.
Totally inappropriate.
She must be sanctioned.
It’s an established Federal law and it is up to Congress to change the current law and it doesn’t matter if she agrees or doesn’t agree- her job is to look at cases based on laws as they are stated.
In effect if she and other biased judges (aganinst Trump) would have won, she would be in effect telling Federal workers to disobey the law.
“It was part of her dissent as I read it.”
doesn’t seem very erudite to include that kind of naked political attack in a SCOTUS opinion ...
“””””””’Why doesn’t Sotomayor wear a watch?
Because there’s clock on the [effin] stove! “”””””””””””
Why does Sotomayer have small feet??????
So she can stand closer to the stove.
"I ------ her."
She cant die soon enough.
Geez. Another whiney liberal on the court. Just like Marshall.
My thought. . .she wants to scare the mexicans in the US to go to the voting booth.
[...] But damed if I know what it could be other than sheer desperation and real fear.
= = = = =
Can advanced diabetes cause cognitive issues? And if so, to the point that she should consider stepping down?
So?
When you win elections, you get to appoint your people and replace the enemies’ people.
Wait until after President Trump wins his second election to see what happens.
“Evidently, Chief Justice John Roberts is the only living American who still believes there are no Democrat or Republican judges.”
And he is probably lying about it...
I learned from Scalia that a “blistering dissent” is worthless.
Elections have consequences...for the losers and rewards for the winners!
Really something, Roberts ripped into Trump for saying there are Obama Judges, here we have a sitting SC Justice saying other SC Justices are GOP lackeys. Is Roberts going to correct her?
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.