The Supreme Court just overruled a lower court injunction against the Trump administration’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy. The Trump administration policy went into effect on Jan. 29, 2019. Since then, more than 60,000 asylum seekers have been returned to Mexico, 27,500 to the Tijuana-Mexicali region, according to Fox5SanDiego.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals had blocked President Trump’s policy last month but allowed it to remain until the Supreme Court could decide on it.
The Supreme Court gave the president a win today by ruling that the “Remain in Mexico” asylum policy can stay in effect. Justice Sotomayor would have denied the government’s application and was the lone dissent. Sotomayor blasted the conservative justices last month on siding with President Trump in cases before the court (see below).
Immigrant rights groups had claimed that illegals returned to Mexico would be in “grave” danger. The policy mandates that asylum seekers return to Mexico instead of wait for hearings in the US. The rights groups claim that by waiting in camps that were created across the border, illegals are suffering more than they would be if they were allowed to be in the US. The past policy of ‘catch and release’ allowed illegals to come into the US but many times they never showed up for their hearings. The illegals would just disappear into the interior of the US. Many critics of catch and release feel it’s just another name for open borders.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’S DISSENT ON THIS CASE AND HER CRITICISM OF THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES:
Senator Ted Cruz explained clearly why President Trump has had to go to the Supreme Court an unprecedented fifty-five times during just three years in office. He says there are district judges who are part of the “Resistance” who keep blocking his agenda.
Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent complaining about having to repeatedly rule on an emergency basis to allow Trump’s policies to go into effect. She also claimed conservative bias on the court favors the Trump administration too often.
Justice Sotomayor and other judges have politicized the courts by blocking President Trump’s administration at every turn.
The numbers are shocking:
Bush-12 injunctions over 8 yrs, Obama 19 injunctions over 8 yrs and Trump-55 injunctions over 3 yrs.
Lou Dobbs and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch discuss Sotomayor:
— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) February 25, 2020
Sotomayor and Ginsberg both have a track record of speaking out on political topics:
President Trump tweeted out that he believes that Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg should recuse themselves when ruling on anything to do with his administration. Do they lack impartiality?
There are numerous examples below of Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg making political statements. Do these statements prove President Trump, right?
Ginsberg has voiced her disregard for the bedrock of our nation…the Constitution. Ginsberg also claimed that the electoral college is bunk. Sotomayor said that illegal aliens are to be considered just like us. And that’s not all! Yep, these are the women of the highest court in the land…scary, huh?
We have been covering these activist judges for some time and cannot believe that the Republicans have let this golden moment slip. They could be pulling the video clips below and using them to slam the very extreme views of these Supreme Court Justices! This is why it’s so important to bring the court back to being apolitical…
Andrew McCarthy of The National Review said it best:
It is simply accepted that these justices are not there to judge. They are there to vote. They get to the desired outcome the same way disparate-impact voodoo always manages to get to discrimination: Start at the end and work backward. Guiding precedents are for the quaint business of administering justice. In the social justice business, the road never before traveled will do if one less traveled is unavailable.
But there’s a problem. Once it has become a given that a critical mass of the Supreme Court is no longer expected, much less obliged, to do law, then the Court is no longer a legal institution. It is a political institution…
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station in 2012 that she would not recommend using the U.S. Constitution as a model for writing a modern-day constitution
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station in 2012 that she would not recommend using the U.S. Constitution as a model for writing a modern-day constitution. pic.twitter.com/QxSIMoIMDA
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) July 9, 2018
“WELL, SOME THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE, ONE IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE” – RBG
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg got the crowd worked up when during a speech at Stanford University, she said she’d support the abolition of the Electoral College. She was asked which constitutional provisions should “evolve with the society”:
“Well, some things I would like to change, one is the electoral college,” she said, to rapturous applause. “But that would require a constitutional amendment. Amending our constitution is powerfully hard to do, as I know from the struggle for the Equal Rights Amendment, which fell three state shy [of passage].
So much for the SCOTUS being apolitical…Check out her comments on equality for women. It’s like she’s time-traveled back to the ’50s.
The remark is at the 1:37 mark:
GINSBURG EXPRESSES “HOPE” IN ANTI-TRUMP PROTESTERS:
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg didn’t conceal her disgust in the current political climate with Donald Trump as our President. She was quick, however to say how the anti-Trump protesters (without actually naming them) give her “hope”. Many believed that she was considering retirement after she was caught sleeping during President Obama’s SOTU speech 2 years ago. She later blamed her “snooze-fest” on wine that she consumed before the address:
Speaking to BBC Newsnight in a rare interview, Justice Ginsburg reiterated the importance of the free press.
“I read the Washington Post and the New York Times every day, and I think that the reporters are trying to tell the public the way things are,” she said.
Justice Ginsburg was nominated by Bill Clinton and is regarded as a liberal.
Justice Ginsburg was careful to avoid commenting directly on Donald Trump’s presidency.
Before the election, in July 2016, Justice Ginsburg criticized Donald Trump – calling him “a faker”. She later said she regretted making the comments.
“Think of what the press has done in the United States,” she said, citing the Watergate scandal. “That story might never have come out if we didn’t have the free press that we do.”
Asked about the rise of the so-called “post truth world”, Justice Ginsburg said: “I am optimistic in the long run. A great man once said that the true symbol of the United States is not the bald eagle. It is the pendulum.
“And when the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it will go back.
“Some terrible things have happened in the United States, but one can only hope that we learn from those bad things.”
Justice Ginsburg said she was encouraged by the Women’s March, which saw millions in the US and around the world take part in anti-Trump protests.
“I’ve never seen such a demonstration – both the numbers and the rapport of the people in that crowd. There was no violence, it was orderly. So yes, we are not experiencing the best times, but there is there is reason to hope that that we will see a better day.”
Justice Ginsburg has been on the Supreme Court since 1993 and – at 83 years-old – is the oldest serving member.
Asked how much longer she would stay in post, she said: “At my age, you have to take it year by year. I know I’m OK. What will be next year?”
She added: “I’m hopeful, however, because my most senior colleague, the one who most recently retired, Justice John Paul Stevens, stepped down at age 90. So I have a way to go.” – BBC
New York Times 2005: “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court embraced the practice of consulting foreign legal decisions…rejecting the argument from conservatives that United States law should not take international thinking into account.”
JUDICIAL BIAS? LATINA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Declares Her Shockingly Racist View On Ethnicity And Sex When Judging
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” – Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor
As the main stream media does a hit job on Donald Trump for expressing his view that the presiding judge in the Trump University case is biased against him because of Trump’s views on immigration, we have a RACIST Latina Supreme Court Justice who’s openly declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge makes a difference in their judging! So which is it? The left wants to have it both ways, but they’re being outed as total hypocrites! Unreal!
Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
AND THEY’RE CALLING TRUMP A RACIST?
WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.
This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”
The video was of a panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, and she was explaining the different experiences gained when working at district courts and appeals courts. Her remarks caught the eye of conservative bloggers who accused her of being a “judicial activist,” although Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, argued that critics were reading far too much into those remarks.
Republicans have signaled that they intend to put the eventual nominee under a microscope, and they say they were put on guard by Mr. Obama’s statement that judges should have “empathy,” a word they suggest could be code for injecting liberal ideology into the law.
Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”
In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case.
She also noted that the Supreme Court was uniformly white and male when it delivered historic rulings against racial and sexual discrimination. And she said she tried to question her own “opinions, sympathies and prejudices,” and aspired to impartiality.
Still, Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”Read more: NYT