Skip to comments.Sonia Sotomayor condemns Trump’s “unrelenting attack on the Muslim religion and its followers”
Posted on 06/26/2018 9:11:03 PM PDT by tom h
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by her colleague Ruth Bader Ginsburg, went bigger and wrote an eloquent version of the Are you f---ing kidding me? reaction ...
"The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our precedent, I dissent" ...
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
For the record, American law and Constitutional protections do not apply to those who are not American citizens. Period. End of story. QED. Any more questions?
Maybe she should step down as a Justice and run for President? What’s that? She won’t? Why not? She knows she can’t win? Well, then she should STFU!
The wise Latina better watch her Leftist mouth. Trump has the ability to close the borders to any security threat. Wonder if a religion that commands violent and stealth Jihad would qualify?
The word "religion" should be changed to "mass movement."
Doesn’t she have serious diabetes issues that might sideline her before Justice Ginsburg? Sounds like President Trump might be able to appoint 3 to 5 more justices or more.
> “The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our precedent, I dissent.”
Well, that’s it. Government actions that cause you pain and suffering are unconstitutional, so Democrats will just have to pack up, go home, and stop bothering Americans.
Hey Justice Raza: it’s not America’s war against Islam. It’s Islam’s war against America.
If anyone would know about unrelenting attacks, it would be Trump. He’s been under attack since entering the GOP primaries.
She’s dragging religion into her Supreme Court decision. Isn’t that against the separation of church and state and therefore, unconstitutional?
But, but, but...how can it be an “unrelenting” attack on “the Muslim religion” when we keep being told that Trump is attacking the crimmigrants coming up from Latin America?
Which is it?
I don’t think her “life story” is “compelling” enough for her to qualify to be president.
It would indeed sir. F those rat bastard commie POSs. 👍
what a poor choice for a judge/justice!
Laura Ingram showed the list of the ten countries with the highest muslim populations. NONE of them are on the travel restrictions list.
islam is a militant death cult. The epitome of a subversive ideology. Anti-Constitution. Anti-American. Anti-natural law. Pro-slavery....islam means to submit. It’s a submission to satan.
Anyone that openly advocates the importation of this enemy is a traitor and should be treated as such.
These comments have no legal relevance. Trumps campaign rhetoric and (to be honest) some rhetorical missteps concerning Muslims were never part of this legal matter. The matter was: Does the President have the right to do a travel ban? Answer: Yes. Period. It’s a shame and very sad the vote wasnt 9-0.
I hear pundits talk about Civil rights of people and whether Trump was being racists. Here’s another fact: Trump can ban anyone for any reason. It’s an absolute power given to the president. So, while talking about race are strong moral arguments they are never these poor legal Arguments. The travel ban was never a serious legal matter and a huge waste of the courts time. This power was resolved in the 1700’s.
It is, however, a legitimate political matter...as all presidential decisions ultimately are. If it bothers you that Trump did the travel ban, don’t vote for him. It’s that simple snowflakes!!!
Nothing but projection.
Justice Sonya Bologna had months to try to persuade at least four of her fellow Justices to join her in her opinion, but she failed to do so.
Her extra-judicial emotionalism, ad hominem attacks, and lack of understanding of the Constitution clearly contributed to her failure, and being a sore loser has contributed to her eroding reputation as someone to be taken seriously.
isn’t there a carpet she should be munching on?
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.