It’s called a low IQ dissent.
(the dissent, not the person)
The wise Latino is full of sh*t.
They’ll just quit applying for asylum and try to sneak in wetback style. This rule will reduce the tide a bit but there is such a job and family network already established for these illegals from sea to shining sea that it won’t stop them entirely.
“the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law.”
It’s called an election. It was in 2016. They have consequences. One might think a wise Latina would be aware of that.
[“Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” ]
Just because they are “long standing principles” doesn’t mean that they are CONSTITUTIONAL!
She apparently is of the belief that the judiciary can make policy decisions and that the Congress and Executive branch are lesser branches.
A black robed tyrant, indeed.
Sounds like it was written by a high school liberal - not too wise or impressive.
“Previously they would have fallen under the “Remain in Mexico” policy while their case was heard, but now they’ll just be disqualified. Can they then go back and ask Mexico for asylum or would they be immediately deported back to their home country?”
This is not a question for America. This is a question that must be asked of Mexico.
Law, like the language in which it of necessity be written, is sometimes a very flexible thing. True, law does depend greatly on established precedent, but the meaning of words of that cited precedent may very well have changed in the intervening years since the precedent was adopted.
In tune with changing times and circumstances, new precedents may have to be determined and applied, then somehow the new precedent must either be reconciled with previous determinations, or the earlier determinations must be revised or even abandoned.
Any competent scholar of law can cite numerous examples of “dead letter” law in the various codes that have been adopted, and also to two or more completely contradictory interpretations of exactly the same language, by various judges over time.
Control the language, and you control the interpretations.
I don't imagine Sotomayor would mind the detention of illegal applicant until the matter is settled...at taxpayers expense of course.
Notice this dissent is very short on law and full of outraged platitudes. More like a blistering rant.
A not-so-wise Latina. Or Latinx? Oh, I’m so confused...
No, Wise-Ass Latina, what is abnormal is U.S. Circuit Courts making rulings and then declaring that they are in effect nationwide. This has led to extensive court shopping on part of the liberals finding judges in Hawaii, etc. who are more than willing to issue injunctions across the entire country. This is why the Trump administration has gone straight to the Supreme Court on matters like this.
She SHOULD be embarrassed by this dissent. It doesn’t even meet the incoherent drivel standard.
Which along with $5 will get you a medium latte...
I hate to admit it, but I am rooting for diabetes.
Not one of her objections is based in the law.
“Long Standing Practice” is not a Law you nitwit.
You are a Justice to interpret the LAW, not suggestions or feel good puppy hugs.
The colonizer’s Fifth Columnist shrieks in horror that her compatriots might not achieve their goal.