Skip to comments.How Justices Kagan and Roberts Characterize Justice Sotomayor’s Dissent
Posted on 06/11/2014 4:03:09 AM PDT by Perdogg
In Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, both Justices Kagan and, to a lesser extent, CJ Roberts use some pretty strong language to characterize Justice Sotomayors dissent.
From Kagans opinion: The dissent responds to this fact only with a pair of non-sequiturs. Post, at 1819 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). but cf. post, at 14 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (wrongly stating that under that rule conversion occurs upon the agencys re- ceipt of proof of the change). It is, therefore, impossible to understand the dissents statement that conversion of such a petition to an appropriate category requires substantive alteration to [the] petition. See post, at 19, n. 8 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.).
(Excerpt) Read more at joshblackman.com ...
Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio would be about...?
Started to read the link but eyes glazed over FRiend, can you transcribe into a sentence or two? Thanks!
“In the case of Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, a plurality of the Court held that children of immigrants who are waiting with their parents for a visa have to go to the back of the line once they reach the age of 21. “
Does our “Wise Latina” twist precedent in favor of ‘wise latinas?’
Not just wise Latinas, but any and all Latinas (and Latinos).
She views her judgeship as an advocacy.
Why not just redirect the bus routes back to the “once upon a time” border? Sure would solve a lot of problems if we dumped them back into Mexico, at least for a while until the came across again.
Nothing more creepy than watching SCT justices and so called academics insulting each other
look y’all, you personally DON’T MATTER
the ideas and principle you are supposed to be applying matter
But this ruling is for LEGAL immigrants waiting for visas for years. The court just ruled that it is rather foolish to do things the legal way and wait your turn - just cross where you can illegally. You will not be sent back and at least you are in the US like you have aspired to be legally for years. (It didn’t say that last part but that is the common sense approach that this ruling reinforced.)
These people were from El Salvador and it was a case of legal immigration. Legal immigration shouldn’t be a byzantine system.
Class and economics have evaporated as causes of war.
The 21st Century will be the century of the blood. The Wise Latina obviously knows this.
In a multi-ethnic environment, the minority ethnicities tend to vote as tribes. The majority ethnicity, if there is one, tends not to vote as a tribe.
However, once a majority ethnicity slips into minority status, it too will start to respond as a tribe.
And that is the situation we're approaching, isn't it?
Is that allowed in Obamastan?
IOW even the USSC KNOWS Sotomayor is unqualified.
Were on the planet is this true, except in Western European and Western European settler states?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The lineup of Justices in this case was rather unusual. The lead opinion (in favor of the Immigration Bureau and against the immigrants) was written by Kagan and joined by Kennedy and Ginsburg (only). Chief Justice Roberts, in an opinion joined only by Scalia, reached the same result for a different reason. Sotomayor dissented (in favor of the immigrants) in an opinion joined only by Breyer and Thomas. Alito also dissented, in a separate opinion joined by nobody else. So the 5-4 decision is actually 3-2-3-1, and you had “liberal” and “conservative” justices on both sides (Kagan, Ginsburg and Scalia for the immigrants; Sotomayor, Breyer, Thomas and Alito against).
Thank you. That is the information I was looking for. It makes it even more devastating to the “WISE LATINA” to be so criticized by Kagan, while Scalia is with her on the law.
Scalia agreed with Kagan as to the result, but not her reasoning. On the other hand, Thomas joined Sotomayor's opinion. Buckeye Texan described this opinion as "cats and dogs living together."
Cats and dogs indeed. Round and round they go, where they’ll stop nobody knows.
Really? The two appointees of the Clown are in sharp disagreement?? I am stuned.
Rather unusual? Man, that is the weirdest lineup to say the least.
Sotomayor and Thomas on the same side??? Hmmm.
And a rare moment when Scalia and Thomas reach a different conclusion.
Just like healthcare where it “used to be” difficult and “expensive”. And “everyone” agreed that it could be done better and nobody should be excluded under a system that was so complex and difficult to navigate.
So - free immigration for everyone!
That is what I had hoped I expressed, but I guess not.
What a shock this crypto-lesbo latina smurf doll would vote for her “la raza”. And this is the only time she has been called “doll” in her life
As confusing as “who’s on first ...”
That’s among the most ridiculous straw-man arguments I’ve ever read on FR. Congratulations or my condolences, whichever you prefer.