Funny that none of the Trumpists have a problem with the President trying to coerce/intimidate the courts to do what he wants.
I think it's a safe bet that no one currently posting in the thread actually read the dissent (let alone, could understand it). The word "bias" does not even appear in the dissent.
What she does say:
- The gov keeps losing cases in the district court. District and Circuit court refuse stay, so they ask SCOTUS. This requires it to show it would suffer "
irreparable harm". The meaning is important.
- The Court just granted a stay of a
nationwide injunction in another case. This case, however, concerns only immigration policy applicable to Illinois. The "harm" claimed is its inability to enforce its public charge thing in Illinois. On top, the government
disclaimed the prior arguments for why a nationwide injunction in the other case was necessary because they undermined the basis of the current request for stay, again, which is only in one state.
- The government is supposed to bear "an especially heavy burden."
- Definition of "public charge" used to be “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.” 64 Fed. Reg. 28689 (1999). “an alien who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months).” 84 Fed. Reg. 41292, 41295.
- When the circuit court refused the stay in this case, it ordered an expedited briefing schedule. Oral argument was set for
February 26, 2020 . Which makes the grant of the stay even more absurd. The circuit court was
moving. A decision was/will be issued soon.
- The Gov did NOT appeal the denial of stay by the circuit court in this case.
- This kind of intervention and stay used to be very rare. Now the court is treating it like "a new normal." The government claims everything is an emergency to try to get these stays.
- Stays require the court to analyze statutory/constitutional questions that were not argued out fully in lower courts. SCOTUS tries not to disturb the normal appellate process and give lower courts the time to reach the right result.
- Given how little "harm" the stay might prevent, it is silly to waste SCOTUS time analyzing the issues now when it will again later.
- The Court's response to applications for stay has "benefited one litigant over all others."
Where's the "irreparable harm" in refusing to stay a case that was going to be decided quickly, very soon to be decided, where the stay is about a change to the "public charge" definition applicable to ONE state?
If the Court has started regularly granting all the government's applications for stay, how is mentioning that fact an accusation of "bias".
In 2018, Trump says an "Obama judge" was biased against his administration. Chief Justice Roberts then rebuked Trump publicly for suggesting that judges are biased. On Friday, Justice Sotomayor pens a dissent accusing Trump Justices of bias. When can we expect Chief Justice Roberts' public rebuke of Justice Sotomayor? ... Don't hold your breath.
When Roberts rebukes Sotomayor, he'll do it privately.
When Roberts rebukes Sotomayor they'll be serving ice slushies in hell.
Good post and welcome to the forum.
Roberts needed to show the world he is a Never Trumper. More a politician than a judge IMO.
The entire thread was a lie. You believed it because Fox (Ingraham) ordered you to. She did not accuse any justices of "bias". Her dissent is based on the sudden weird change in granting stays and on how the stay is particularly unnecessary in this case given just how little is at stake.
Not one of you tried to even read the seven page dissent.