Posted on 06/22/2024 9:55:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court is in the midst of issuing a flurry of rulings as they finish up the court's current session. One of them that was handed down yesterday is raising eyebrows for unusual reasons. In the case of Department of State v. Munoz, Sandra Munoz was challenging the denial of her husband's ability to enter the United States from El Salvador to come live with her. Immigration officials at the U.S. Consulate in El Salvador had refused entry to Luis Asencio-Cordero because of tattoos he had which they believed indicated that he was a member of one of El Salvador's criminal gangs. The court ruled 6-3 in favor of the State Department, saying that citizens have no constitutional right to be able to reside with their spouse within the United States if other legal impediments prevent that from happening.
The three liberal justices dissented, with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor penning a somewhat bizarre dissent, claiming that the majority's ruling was not only "chipping away at constitutional protections for married couples," but could also threaten the legality of gay marriage. (New Republic)
In a ruling delivered Friday, the Supreme Court decided 6–3 that U.S. citizens have no constitutional interest in their noncitizen spouses being able to enter the United States—despite the fact that a married person has an inherent interest in their spouse being able to live in the same country as they do. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned the ruling is an obvious sign the court will seek to overturn protections for marriage equality next.
Sotomayor issued a dire warning in her dissent, accusing the conservative supermajority of chipping away at constitutional protections for married couples and saying they’re making “the same fatal error” as they did in Dobbs v. Jackson, the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned federal abortion protections.
“The majority, ignoring these precedents, makes the same fatal error it made in Dobbs: requiring too ‘careful [a] description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest,’” Sotomayor wrote.
Attempting to pick apart Sotomayor's dissent is rather complicated because there are several factors involved. One of these is the fact that the plaintiff's attorneys brought in an expert witness who testified that Asencio-Cordero's tattoos were not actually gang-related. (How one becomes an expert in that specific field wasn't made clear.) It is common knowledge that Latin American gang members frequently sport large numbers of tattoos, but perhaps that wasn't the case with him. In any event, that question seems immaterial to the underlying constitutional issue.
The key argument comes with Sotomayor's assertion that a constitutional right to cohabitate with a spouse exists. No one was denying Sandra Munoz's right to marry her husband. Immigration officials were denying him entry into the country. This was strictly a question of immigration law, not a question of laws involving marriage. Munoz was free to travel and live with her spouse in El Salvador if they were willing to accept her, something that Sotomayor noted in her dissent. But she claimed that Munoz would be at risk of being denied entry, another point that seems irrelevant in this debate.
If a right to cohabitate with a spouse existed, we would never be able to imprison anyone who is married. A marriage license could literally be brandished as a license to kill. The U.S. Consulate in El Salvador denied Munoz's husband a visa. This was done based on a provision in U.S. immigration law that allows such a denial if the Consulate "knows or has reasonable ground to believe” that a person is trying to enter the U.S. “to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in” unlawful activity. Finding that Asencio-Cordero was likely a gang member (whether that turned out to be accurate or not) seems as if it would clearly fall into this category. And none of this addresses the question of how this ruling could be applied to a hypothetical challenge to the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry.
This ruling in Department of State v. Munoz comes at an important moment. Thanks to Joe Biden's disastrous open border policies, immigration officials are already overwhelmed and being given conflicting and seemingly illegal guidelines to follow by the White House. The courts are flooded with challenges brought by people who didn't manage to be caught and released into the interior of the country to take advantage of all of the free benefits being offered under the Biden administration. The right of refusal of entry to those we do somehow manage to intercept is critical. If Sotomayor and her two liberal colleagues had gotten their way, it would have one more wrinkle in the system making it even harder to close our border again. The court's conservative majority should be applauded for this sensible ruling.
“What’s legal and what’s righteous often two different things.”
Confuscious
An American who married a non-American has such an interest, but that simply isn’t a constitutional interest.
She’s as much an idiot on common sense as she is on staircases.
She;s dumb and I believe she’s a Lesbian to boot!
This cow nauseates me
Obumbo put her there and there’s moron Biden’s cute trick,
signing the misnomered “Respect for Marriage Act,”
(explicitly legalizing homo-marriage).
When “gay” marriage was put up for a vote, it failed everywhere except in Hawaii, Oregon and Maine. It even failed in California!
It was the radical Ginsburg court (with help from Anthony Kennedy) that rammed homo marriage onto society by a mere 5-4 ruling. Even Dread Pirate Roberts dissented.
Sotomayor outs herself as the SCOTUS leaker.
She issues here crazy dissent days after the Biden administration issues its crazy ruling to allow aliens married to US citizens to remain in the country. Coincidence?
That’s funny. Liberals defending marriage? Should have thought of that long ago.
“Her very presence in our sacrosanct justice system is an affront
to the dispensation of American values via jurisprudence.”
The following Republican Senators voted to put her on the Supreme Court:
Collins, Snowe, Gregg, Voinovich, Martinez, Lugar, Bond, Graham, Alexander.
Lindsay Graham stated in support of her nomination, “I believe she follows precedent, that she has not been an activist judge in the sense that would make her disqualified, in my view.”
Susan Collins said, “ “I know that I will not agree with every decision Justice Sotomayor reaches on the court, just as I disagree with some of her previous decisions. However, upon reading these decisions, talking personally with her and hearing her responses to probing questions, I have concluded that Judge Sotomayor understands the proper role of a judge and is committed to applying the law impartially without bias or favoritism.”
So being a member of a gang known for murder, rape, drug dealing, etc., isn’t justification to deny immigration, as long as you’re married to a U. S. citizen?
Makes you wonder if those three dissenting would be OK with allowing, say, some radical, bomb making jihadist to immigrate as long as he spouse that is a U. S. citizen.
Sure would make it so much easier for all them to (legally) enter the United States . . .
If she wants to rely on precedent then integration goes away and it’s ok to own slaves.
Surprised Romney wasn’t on that list. Collins I expected.
She has sht for brains
It’s not going away but the shine can wear off that penny.
The three demoRAT SCOTUS #un^3 should never have been confirmed.
The last one is so ignorant, she does not know how to define a woman.
SHE’S never penned any opinion worth a damn.
I look for her to step down next 4 years. Thomas probably too.
IT Trump president that will give us a 7 to 2 advantage. Game, set, match as that goes.
We must win back the Senate.
Legalizing pervert marriage was a MONUMENTAL mistake!
"Her very presence in our sacrosanct justice system is an affront to the dispensation of American values via jurisprudence."
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor shouldn't be on the post-17th Amendment ratification Supreme Court any more than OBiden should be in the Oval Office.
The common problem that they're still in office is that the very corrupt Congress is protecting them by not doing its duty to impeach and remove them from office.
The mock impeachments of Trump by elite, desperate Democrats and RINOs aside, OBiden won't be the first president to be impeached, and Sotomayor likewise not the first Supreme Court justice to be impeached.
Samuel Chase (non-FR)
Since Congress is now scandalously not doing its duty to impeach and remove from office misguided high level officials who should not be exercising government power, it's up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to effectively "impeach and remove" Congress from office in November when they elect hopeful Trump 47 for the third time.
Trump deserves a new Constitution-respecting Congress, not only so that he won't be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term in office, the new Congress also supporting him to quickly finish draining the swamp, including giving the nation a new, likewise Constitution-respecting Supreme Court.
The Constitution may be inadequate to judge moral issues. I doubt the Founding Fathers ever anticipated drastic changes to moral values - i.e.: Progressives.
IOW, SCOTUS should have avoided issuing judgements on abortion and 'gay' marriage. What the Constitution does provide for is the 10th Amendment where all powers not assigned to the federal govt are automatically the province of the states.
How odd that the pro abortion crowd now states that abortion has been outlawed. Just the opposite! It has been turned from a sweeping dictatorial autocratic ruling into a democratic local issue. When the abortion issue becomes legalized infanticide - which it will - then SCOTUS can ethically intervene and impose the Constitution.
States having opposing laws concerning abortion and 'gay' marriage does present some difficulties in application and enforcement - thus it is up to the states (not the U.S. Congress) to resolve those issues.🤷
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.