5-4 Stay, In “Public Charge” Illinois Injunction Case Engenders A Blistering [And Well Reasoned] Sotomayor Dissent.

The wise Latina Justice we have come to admire for her minimalist-, but scalpel sharp– arguments, often in just a very few entences. . . is not remotely. . . wrong, over this weekend.

It seems the Roberts Court [usually 5-4, now] far too hastily jumps into disputes when for over a century and a half, prior iterations of the highest court have — even in momentously political cases — let the appelate process play out, before weighing in.

She is right to point out that Kavanaugh in particular has shown himself far too slow [previously, on the appelate panels] to step up, and decide, when he perceived the end sought was a liberal one [even if clearly lawful], while he’s led the rush to halt normal injunctions — ones that are preserving the status quo, essentially — where Mr. Trump wishes to ignore the long established constitutional and treaty rights of humans without a full badge of US citizenship, just yet. Do read her wise words here, in full — but here is a bit, below:

. . .Perhaps most troublingly, the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others [Ed. note: this plainly means the present occupant of 1600 Penn]. This Court often permits executions — where the risk of irreparable harm is the loss of life — to proceed, justifying many of those decisions on purported failures “to raise any potentially meritorious claims in a timely manner. . . .”

Yet the Court’s concerns over quick decisions wither when prodded by the Government in far less compelling circumstances — where the Government itself chose to wait to seek relief, and where its claimed harm is continuation of a 20-year status quo in one State. I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decisionmaking process that this Court must strive to protect.

I respectfully dissent. . . .

Separately, the able USDC Judge in DC, on Roger Stone’s felonies case quite properly turned down his motion to remove her for bias against him (after she sentenced him to less than half of what the original guidelines, as calculated, would have implied).

Don’t scream. . . go vote. Go vote.


There are no comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: