Why is a Supreme Court Justice injecting politics into issues she doesnt agree with?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sotomayor issues blistering dissent, says Republican-appointed justices have bias toward Trump administration​

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a scathing rebuke of the court's decision to allow the Trump administration to enforce its "public charge" rule in the state of Illinois, limiting which non-citizens can obtain visas to enter the U.S.

Sotomayor's problems with the conservative majority's ruling went far beyond this case, claiming that it was symptomatic of the court's habit of siding with the government when they seek emergency stays of rulings against them.

HOLDER PUSHES FOR SUPREME COURT TERM LIMITS, SAYS '18 YEARS IS ENOUGH'

"It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it," Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

This particular case, Wolf v. Cook County, deals with the Trump administration's expansion of situations where the government can deny visas to non-citizens looking to enter the U.S. 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 the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), forms of Medicaid, and certain housing assistance did not count, but the Department of Homeland Security issued its new public charge rule in 2019 which did include these benefits.

The new rule was already blocked with a nationwide injunction in a separate case, so the Supreme Court's granting of a stay in the Cook County case only lets the government enforce the rule in the state of Illinois while litigation continues.

That narrow scope, plus the fact that the 7th Circuit is scheduled to review the Illinois injunction in the coming week, led Sotomayor to believe that the government was not at risk of suffering significant harm that warranted the Supreme Court putting the injunction on hold.

The liberal justice expressed concern that a majority of her colleagues had no problem with this. She explained that it is unusual for an administration to seek stays against injunctions with this sort of frequency, yet it is becoming the new normal.

"Claiming one emergency after another, the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each," she wrote. "And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow. Indeed, its behavior relating to the public-charge rule in particular shows how much its own definition of irreparable harm has shifted.”

Sotomayor went on to claim that the Supreme Court has been overly accommodating when it comes to stay applications, but mainly just for the Trump administration. In contrast, she pointed out, they tend to deny stay applications for executions.

"I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decision making process that this Court must strive to protect," she said.

Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg threw his support behind Sotomayor in a Saturday tweet.

"Justice Sotomayor is right to sound the alarm," Bloomberg tweeted Saturday. "If Trump wins in November, the Supreme Court essentially will become a rubber stamp for his assault on immigrants, health care and equality."

Recent history, however, shows that the conservative majority has been anything but in lockstep with conservative politics. Last year, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch -- both Trump appointees -- drew attention for siding with the court's liberal contingent on a number of cases.

Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, had perhaps the most notorious break from the conservative ranks when he ruled in favor of Obamacare in 2012.

 

Dumbocrates have been tring to pack the Supreme Court for years.
Now when it goes again their agenda they want to limit it.
Can you say HYPOCRITE?

 

Sonia Sotomayor is an Obama appointee and a hypocrite partisan hack herself... Her blatant hypocrisy is sickening. Liberal judges have time after time based their decisions on their agenda, not the law and Constitution.

Besides, she's complaining about something that doesn't exist...

The OP's article states correctly that recent" history shows that the conservative majority has been anything but in lockstep with conservative politics. Last year, Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, both Trump appointees, drew attention for siding with the court's liberal contingent on a number of cases."

Like what was said in the OP, even "Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, had perhaps the most notorious break from the conservative ranks when he voted in favor of Obamacare in 2012".

Sonia Sotomayor is a disgrace to the court...

 

She's clearly biased, in a setting that demands impartiality

 

Dissension on the court is a good thing; it tends to keep the dishonest from going too far, and reminds the honest that there are opposing views to be considered.

 

I agree with dissension but now we are talking extremism which apparently is bad if from the right but not from the left.Sotomayor is the most activist member of the court. She should never have been appointed. I believe the Constitution is something she reviles as it stands in the way of her larger social agenda. I may disagree with Ginsberg but I respect her. If the next president is a left winger the court will change the US in every fundamental good way.

 

Well, there's a decent chance that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be replaced by President Trump, and a fair chance that Breyer will be replaced by President Trump if (when) he's reelected. Ginsberg, after all, is 86 and Breyer is 81.
That will piss off despicables no matter who President Trump nominates.

After that, barring accidents, the court will probably go another 10-15 years without needing to replace anyone. The next oldest judge is Clarence Thomas, and he's only 71.
That will piss off despicables, cause, you know, they want to nominate someone. Trump got to, why can't they?

 

Trump says Sotomayor, Ginsburg should recuse themselves from cases dealing with his administration​

Justice Sotomayor accuses GOP-appointed justices of being biased in favor of Trump

In a remarkable public rebuke, President Trump late Monday called on Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from any cases involving his administration over their past comments.

Trump has proven in the past that he is not bashful about criticizing justices, but he seemed to be particularly bothered by a recent dissent by Sotomayor hinting that conservative-leaning justices have a bias towards Trump.

The president's tweet cited Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, "The Ingraham Angle," and he accused Sotomayor of attempting to shame other justices to vote with her.

Sotomayor, who was nominated by President Obama in 2009, issued the blistering dissent Friday after a ruling in the case of Wolf v. Cook County.

The case dealt with the Trump administration's expansion of situations where the government can deny visas to non-citizens looking to enter the U.S.

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.

Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, "It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it."

Vox pointed out what appeared to be the crux of Sotomayor's argument: the Trump administration has a practice of using a favorable Supreme Court to bypass lower courts still considering cases. The report pointed to a paper written by Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor. Vladeck wrote that Trump's solicitor general has filed at least 21 stay applications in the Supreme Court and compared that number to the combined eight times the applications were used during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations.

"Claiming one emergency after another, the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each," Sotomayor wrote in the dissent. "And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow. Indeed, its behavior relating to the public-charge rule in particular shows how much its own definition of irreparable harm has shifted.”

Trump supporters say the administration has good reason to take its cases to the Supreme Court.

Carrie Severino, the president of the Judicial Crisis Network, told Ingraham that Sotomayor's concern is misplaced. She said lower-court judges are repeatedly issuing nationwide injunctions at a quantity never before seen -- that is, ruling that their decision affects the entire country rather than the jurisdiction wherein it was brought.

Trump, once again, brought up the time Ginsburg called him a "faker" during the 2016 presidential campaign. She told CNN at the time that Trump has "no consistency about him. He says whatever comes to his head at the moment."

She apologized shortly thereafter, but Trump brought the slight up during a later interview, while Ginsburg was recovering from a health issue two years later.

"I wish her well. She said something very inappropriate during the campaign, but she apologized for it," he said.

 

Supreme Court justices should have the gravitas about them not to involve themselves in political issues when not dealing with court issues at hand.

How to enforce this though? Impossible.

I disagree with Trump that they should be recused but they both have shown poor judgment.

 

.
no idea wtf happend there
sorry

 

Yes the attack on the Supreme Court has begun. Its the last step in Trump becoming a full fledged mad king dictator.

Aaron Rupar ✔ @atrupar

· 1h

Trump, during news conference in India, explains that he thinks Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should recuse herself from cases involving him because she didn't support him in 2016. He also calls on Justice Sotomayor to recuse herself for an unspecified "inappropriate" statement.






Kevin Johnson @Avellini7

So clearly Gorsuch and Kavanaugh should recuse themselves from any case involving you because they owe their positions to you... Right?



114
6:17 AM - Feb 25, 2020

 

No, it's just each party being identical to each the other Republicans act JUST LIKE DEMOCRATS. Anyone who denies this is a liar or an idiot.

Republican = Democrat = Dishonest piece of shit.

 

So clearly you do not understand,
...............................................................................................................................................................................................that a Supreme Court judge, should not be trying to influence her peers through public statements...its unprofessional. A SCJ should not even give the appearance of such. Bet she was bribed by Soros!

Liberal decorum has one again lowered the standards of acceptability.



Research, research, must counter claim!

 

Your ignorance is literally laughable. What the fuck do you think a written "dissent" is? And it is absolutely common for justices to take issue with the majority decisions or the majority itself. You get this right wing false propaganda off Fox News and think you fucking know something when you don't have a fucking clue and just spout ignorant bullshit. Justice Sotomayor was criticizing the majority for taking up cases instead of allowing them to work through the appeals process.

Trump's offensive against Justice Sotomayor crumbles under scrutiny
The more Donald Trump tries to go after Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the less sense his

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...ce-sotomayor-crumbles-under-scrutiny-n1142626

 

Words matter

TWAT

 

Dignified descent is acceptable, not framing it the way she did questioning the other judges motives...has another Justice done similar....again, liberal lowered the bar(pun intended) funny how the left seems to thrive in the gutter.

"You get this right wing false propaganda off Fox News"....says the man quoting MSNBC, dailybeast, Mother Jones, CNN and the rest of the multitude of biased liberal media.....only one Conservative outlet that kicks the ratings ass of every other outlet.

"Your ignorance is literally laughable.
What the fuck do you think
think you fucking know something
you don't have a fucking clue
spout ignorant bullshit"

You couldnt fit more curses and insults in their if ya tried

 

Cruz scorches Sotomayor over court critique, turns tables on her dissent​

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz on Tuesday tore into Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a widely noticed dissent in which she blasted her colleagues for lifting injunctions on controversial Trump administration policies.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the use of nationwide injunctions – which stop policies from taking effect – Cruz cast the blame on liberal jurists for what he described as an abnormal number of these measures against the Trump administration in the first place. He accused judges of acting as "partisan political activists."

This, he argued, has reasonably resulted in the government fighting back.

"I read it a little bit like an arsonist complaining about the noise from the fire trucks," Cruz said of Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Wolf v. Cook County, which dealt with regulations placing restrictions on non-citizens applying for visas to enter the U.S.

A lower court had issued a nationwide injunction against the administration, blocking the regulations, although the Cook County case only dealt with an Illinois injunction.

Sotomayor used her to dissent to rail against the administration for its repeated tactic of applying for emergency stays so injunctions could be put on hold.

"It is hard to say what is more troubling," Sotomayor wrote, "that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it," she wrote.

But Cruz turned the issue around, stating that the Trump administration would not have to take such measures if judges were not granting an unusual number of nationwide injunctions.

“If you look to the facts of what’s happening with nationwide injunctions, I think it will explain why the Department of Justice has had to ask the Supreme Court to intervene over and over again,” Cruz said.

Cruz noted that one-third of all nationwide injunctions have come from California courts, and that two-thirds of the states have not produced any.

“So you have a handful of courts that are driving this," he said.

Cruz also pointed to the disparity between the number of nationwide injunctions granted against the Trump administration compared with previous administrations.

“In the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, district courts issued a total of 12 universal injunctions against the Bush administration,” he said. "In the eight years of the Obama administration, district courts issued 19 universal injunctions against the Obama administration. In just three years of the Trump administration, we have already had 55 national universal injunctions issued against the federal government."

Cruz defended the Justice Department, stating that the administration is fighting back against activist judges who are trying to interfere with politics.

"I believe we have a handful of judges who are operating effectively as part of the resistance movement, putting themselves in the way of Trump policies they happen to disagree with," he said.

Trump himself spoke out against Sotomayor earlier in the day, during a press conference in New Delhi, India.

“I just thought it was so inappropriate, such a terrible statement for a Supreme Court justice,” he said. “She’s trying to shame people with perhaps a different view into voting her way, and that’s so inappropriate.” Trump had previously tweeted about Sotomayor's dissent, calling it "a terrible thing to say."

 

LOL, so when McConnell came out and said he would not be impartial, you denounced him, right?

I'll bet you were more silent than a titmouse...

 

Lol! I've heard that it is one of the reason Trump was elected was because he bucked the dignity...

Ooh never mind, I'll just laugh instead...

 

Trump’s attack on Sotomayor and Ginsburg backfires as people point out conservative justices’ conflicts of interest

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/tr...-conservative-justices-conflicts-of-interest/