Answer: You lash out like a whiner and accuse your GOP-appointed colleagues of being brainless, mindless robots who are controlled by President Donald Trump.
In a ‘blistering dissent’ — and one that is practically unprecedented — Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee who was nominated by him because she is a like-minded Leftist, blasted the court’s recent 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.
“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.
Translation: She’s angry that she’s been relegated to a permanent minority and isn’t going to get her way much for the remainder of her career.
And who was it that said there are no “Obama judges” or “Trump judges” on the high court? Oh, that’s right: Chief Justice John Roberts. Hmmm.
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.
Now, mind you, what U.S. law actually says means very little to Democrat-appointed judges and justices, as we’ve seen time and again in federal circuits where they dominate. But to judges being appointed by President Trump and, to a large degree those appointed by Presidents Bush and Reagan, the rule of law and the Constitution do mean something. They understand the Judicial Branch’s role isn’t to make policy or help Leftists implement policy, the law be damned, it is to ‘judge’ whether laws and policies comport with the Constitution and constitutionally-passed laws.
Poor Sonia, doesnt like her position on the SC. Im sure if the court had one more leftist they wouldnt vote as a SOLID BLOCK OF FIVE THE WAY THEY VOTE A SOLID BLOCK OF FOUR RIGHT SONIA????