Skip to comments.Sotomayor issues blistering dissent, says Republican-appointed justices have bias toward Trump administration
Posted on 02/23/2020 8:11:13 AM PST by PROCON
click here to read article
Not a blood relative... But, that is where the nom de guerre comes from (it was a college nickname).
She has a history of falling down!😎
How about you, Soto?
Are you trying to hide your bias toward the Left/Socialism/Communism, Dear Wise Latina?
If you are, you are doing a lousy job.
I thought Roberts assured America than the Judiciary had no political bias at all?
Or are you just butt hurt cuz your side is losing?
This is when Devin Nunes should offer legislation assessing the Incomes and Assets of “Court Officers” to pay for Non Citizen Aid.
LET THE JUDGES AND LAWYERS PAY FOR IT!!
Can advanced diabetes cause cognitive issues?
Yes, through vascular problems. My late mother was 45 years on insulin, and towards the end she had problems with blood flow to her brain and micro-strokes that resulted in severe troubles with her thinking.
I wonder if she realizes that there are two sides to 5-4 decisions, if split between conservative and liberal justices.
By the way, does she speak English?
She says this with a straight face as she, a Hispanic Supreme Court Justice advocates for illegal immigrants .
Classic liberal projection as usual.
How does that shoe on the other foot feel biotch?
Me thinks the wise latina is a idiot.
Trump administration’s expansion of situations where the government can deny visas to non-citizens.
Logic and law in one statement love it.
While there isn’t much difference between the GOPe and the Democrats, this is the big area where there is a difference, even Mitt or McCain would have never nominated someone like Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
Looks like Sista Sonia is Down for the Struggle!
It is about law and nothing but law.
Or it’s treason from the bench.
STFU, Wise Latina.
Sotomayer lies, and she knows it.
She knows the learned justices she disagrees with are not doing political favors for Trump. They quite rightly and simply have a Constitutional view that differs from hers and that view, unlike hers, does not find Constitutional fault with the policies and executive orders that she wants the justices to disallow.
She shows her very tenure was and is for the favoring of a political bias and not the Constitution and for that she never should have been granted a seat on our highest court.
Its the CONSTITUTION. You know, that archaic document you and your pals are trying to trash.
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 forms of Medicaid and certain housing assistance did not count.
Huh??? Of course they counted, in the rule...That's what a 'public charge' is...It's just that no one enforced the rule...
It's a shame the Communists in the SC are now going main stream media political...The 'decision' has nothing to do with Trump...It's about upholding the rule of law (that already exists)...
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.