God Bless Sonia from The Bronx

Sotomayor dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a blistering dissent, said the court was wrong to ignore Trump's various comments.
"The majority here completely sets aside the President's charged statements about Muslims as irrelevant," she wrote. "That holding erodes the foundational principles of religious tolerance that the court elsewhere has so emphatically protected, and it tells members of minority religions in our country 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.'"
She also compared the opinion to one that came down in 1944 in which the court blessed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.


Unfortunately, by a 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court pretends that Trump's clearly stated intent and reasons don't matter.

They're like Jill Stein and her minions that way.


No kidding. We need her. Let us pray for the continued health and wellbeing of Justice Ginsburg.


NotoriousEAM said:
No kidding. We need her. Let us pray for the continued health and wellbeing of Justice Ginsburg.

No kidding. And a Senate majority this November. All we need is enough to override Pence’s vote. 

Long live RBG. 


I argued before the presidential election that a democrat (Clinton) need be elected. Basically, that the Hillary hating Sander's crowd need to vote for her because of the courts. I pointed out the Republican members of the senate have held Obama's court nominees so they could their people in.

Still many did not vote for her. They either did not vote or voted for Stein or even Trump hoping to shake up the system which they felt corporate status quo Hillary would not do.

Well its happening. Federal court nominees, judicial deplorables supplied by the Federalist Society, are fast tracked in the senate, in batches. Where senate judicial committee meetings interview several nominees at a time. Many being rated as no good by the bar association. But that doesn't matter because the senate no longer listens to the bar. The nominees are pretty young ensuring they'll affect the courts for at least one generation and likely longer.

So, so much, for the geniuses who voted Trump or third party hoping to shake up the system with their belief damage can be undone by the next president should things don't work out.

Almost all cases that affect us are worked out in the district, special and circuit courts. Which are being stacked by Trump deplorables. 

This damage will last a very long time.


BG9 said:
Almost all cases that affect us are worked out in the district, special and circuit courts. Which are being stacked by Trump deplorables. 
This damage will last a very long time.

Did the 300-plus federal judges who were confirmed under Obama (compared with the 40 or so, so far, under Trump) have no impact?


@BG9, I still know at least one person who STILL thinks we would be as bad off as we are now if we had elected Hillary Clinton. It boggles the mind.

The Trump presidency has proven to be far worse than I had feared, and that's saying a lot. I wish emigrating weren't so hard, because I'm having fantasies.


DaveSchmidt said:


BG9 said:
Almost all cases that affect us are worked out in the district, special and circuit courts. Which are being stacked by Trump deplorables. 
This damage will last a very long time.
Did the 300-plus federal judges who were confirmed under Obama (compared with the 40 or so, so far, under Trump) have no impact?

They were mostly centrist in order to get through the senate. Mostly a neutral effect. 

But they want a real right shift:

Even though there’s been nothing subtle about the current push to fill dozens of judicial vacancies kept open by the Republican-controlled Senate during the final years of the Obama administration, a document now making the rounds inside the Beltway is head-snapping. It is a proposal by a leading conservative constitutional scholar to double or even triple the number of authorized judgeships on the federal Courts of Appeals, now fixed by law at 179.

Why so many, and why now? The author, Steven G. Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern University, a founder and the current board chairman of the conservative Federalist Society, declares his goal boldly: “undoing the judicial legacy of President Barack Obama.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/conservatives-weaponize-federal-courts.html

More on the packing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/us/politics/trump-judiciary-appeals-courts-conservatives.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/opinion/trump-judges-courts.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/12/he-has-never-tried-a-case-but-trump-wants-to-make-him-judge-for-life/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/conservatives-weaponize-federal-courts.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/30/trump-judge-appointments-roe-v-wade-courts


So, in 18 months in office, he's appointed 21 of 179 judges on the Circuit Courts?  He has 13 more pending.  Yes, that's an impact. How many did Obama appoint in 8 years and how many vacancies were held open during Obama's final year in office?


LOST said:


Sotomayor dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a blistering dissent, said the court was wrong to ignore Trump's various comments.
"The majority here completely sets aside the President's charged statements about Muslims as irrelevant," she wrote. "That holding erodes the foundational principles of religious tolerance that the court elsewhere has so emphatically protected, and it tells members of minority religions in our country 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.'"
She also compared the opinion to one that came down in 1944 in which the court blessed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.


"The travel ban case says you can’t look at an official’s un-revoked statements demonstrating religious animus in deciding whether his act is constitutional—no matter how blatant and central to his policy. The wedding cake case says you must—no matter how equivocal and marginal."

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1011662033006231552

 


Steve said:
So, in 18 months in office, he's appointed 21 of 179 judges on the Circuit Courts?  He has 13 more pending.  Yes, that's an impact. How many did Obama appoint in 8 years and how many vacancies were held open during Obama's final year in office?

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/20/how-president-trump-will-shape-the-federal-courts/


Steve said:
How many did Obama appoint in 8 years and how many vacancies were held open during Obama's final year in office?

Wikipedia lists 55 confirmed to the circuits in Obama’s eight years.


Compare that to 21 appointed and 13 pending in less than 18 months.


Steve said:
Compare that to 21 appointed and 13 pending in less than 18 months.

If I’m parsing the list right, Obama had 9 and 7 in the same period.

I get it, Steve. I had already read most of BG9’s links, and then some. My question simply noted that Trump’s appointees aren’t filling a vacuum, and asked if BG9 thought that made any difference.


This is so horrible. Although I will join the march on 6/30, and will work against Trump's presidency politically  forever, I am glad I am old and won't be around to feel the longterm sting and grip of his legacy.


What is so terrible about Chad, or any of the other countries?


BG9 said:
I argued before the presidential election that a democrat (Clinton) need be elected. Basically, that the Hillary hating Sander's crowd need to vote for her because of the courts. I pointed out the Republican members of the senate have held Obama's court nominees so they could their people in.
Still many did not vote for her. They either did not vote or voted for Stein or even Trump hoping to shake up the system which they felt corporate status quo Hillary would not do.
Well its happening. Federal court nominees, judicial deplorables supplied by the Federalist Society, are fast tracked in the senate, in batches. Where senate judicial committee meetings interview several nominees at a time. Many being rated as no good by the bar association. But that doesn't matter because the senate no longer listens to the bar. The nominees are pretty young ensuring they'll affect the courts for at least one generation and likely longer.
So, so much, for the geniuses who voted Trump or third party hoping to shake up the system with their belief damage can be undone by the next president should things don't work out.
Almost all cases that affect us are worked out in the district, special and circuit courts. Which are being stacked by Trump deplorables. 
This damage will last a very long time.

 THIS.  The courts are being changed for decades.


I’m sorry, dear friends, I just can’t bring myself to visit your country while this ruling stands. Applying for a visa under this feels like I endorse the reasoning, agree to his changing your basic values. 

So much for planning that long-awaited Big Tour. (I have long service leave some time in the next 2 years. Maybe we’ll catch up in Canada?)


joanne said:
I’m sorry, dear friends, I just can’t bring myself to visit your country while this ruling stands. Applying for a visa under this feels like I endorse the reasoning, agree to his changing your basic values. 
So much for planning that long-awaited Big Tour. (I have long service leave some time in the next 2 years. Maybe we’ll catch up in Canada?)

 Who would blame you? This country will be in tatters for a while. 


I’m sitting here, crying for you all. 


BG9 said:
I argued before the presidential election that a democrat (Clinton) need be elected. Basically, that the Hillary hating Sander's crowd need to vote for her because of the courts. I pointed out the Republican members of the senate have held Obama's court nominees so they could their people in.
Still many did not vote for her. They either did not vote or voted for Stein or even Trump hoping to shake up the system which they felt corporate status quo Hillary would not do.
Well its happening. Federal court nominees, judicial deplorables supplied by the Federalist Society, are fast tracked in the senate, in batches. Where senate judicial committee meetings interview several nominees at a time. Many being rated as no good by the bar association. But that doesn't matter because the senate no longer listens to the bar. The nominees are pretty young ensuring they'll affect the courts for at least one generation and likely longer.
So, so much, for the geniuses who voted Trump or third party hoping to shake up the system with their belief damage can be undone by the next president should things don't work out.
Almost all cases that affect us are worked out in the district, special and circuit courts. Which are being stacked by Trump deplorables. 
This damage will last a very long time.

 I held my nose and voted for HRC even though I thought she was a terrible nominee. I voted for her even though she decided to spit in the face of progressives and choose Tim Kaine as her running mate.  Your heartfelt thanks are certainly appreciated but maybe next time you can work to nominate a candidate that isn't too toxic to win (which is to say some of this is on you, buddy).


I admit I haven't followed this "Travel Ban" case as closely as many of you may have done and I have a question.   As I understand the current (third edition) of the "Travel Ban", it applies only to immigrants/travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, North Korea, and Venezuela.  Of course, 5 of those are majority Muslim nations.  However, if my understanding is correct, it is not a blanket ban on all Muslims seeking to enter the U.S. from any/all countries.  So, were a Muslim from France or Sweden or Ghana to apply to come to the US, it seems that this particular executive order would not apply....or am I mistaken?  I realize that Trump once called for a complete ban on all Muslims and it is that rhetoric upon which Sotomayor believes this executive order is based, making it a thinly veiled form of religious discrimination instead of being a matter of national security as Trump contends.  Not at all trying to defend the Executive Order, just seeking to clarify and understand.


An example of a Trump nominee, courtesy through the Federalist Society:

Ryan Bounds, a 45-year-old lawyer from Oregon, and a longtime member of the very conservative Federalist Society, has been nominated to the powerful and influential ninth circuit court of appeals. He has failed to obtain the support of either senator from Oregon. Nonetheless, he was nominated on 7 September 2017 and had a Senate judiciary committee hearing on 9 May 2018.
...
The available materials consist of many articles written during his student years that reveal deeply conservative views. He has belittled campus sexual assaults, attacked the concepts of multiculturalism on college campuses, called student affinity groups “feel good ethnic hoedowns” and mocked students engaged in pro-labor protests.

So much for the courtesy of blue slipping.


Norman Bates: It's another wedge to hammer into the cracks of our democracy.


joanne said:
I’m sorry, dear friends, I just can’t bring myself to visit your country while this ruling stands. Applying for a visa under this feels like I endorse the reasoning, agree to his changing your basic values. 
So much for planning that long-awaited Big Tour. (I have long service leave some time in the next 2 years. Maybe we’ll catch up in Canada?)

 Come on joanne, you must come! And we all must stay and fight the good fight. I'm not leaving, I wouldn't leave even if I wanted to leave. I'd cut up my passport to spite my face.

Sit back and watch what happens in the midterms. And we have big things, we are told, coming soon from Mueller, who holds our hopes in his hands.

I'd meet you in Canada but there's that thing about the seals.


for Morganna:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/27/brenda-the-civil-disobedience-penguin-says-totalitarianism-is-coming-to-australia


Norman Bates, the other point that’s caught up in this nasty travel ban is that if you’ve been anywhere near those nations, even for professional reasons, you’re not allowed to enter the US. So some very prominent people have recently been refused entry, meaning they can’t address the UN, deliver keynote addresses to international conferences, continue important international research etc. 


joanne said:
for Morganna:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/27/brenda-the-civil-disobedience-penguin-says-totalitarianism-is-coming-to-australia


Norman Bates, the other point that’s caught up in this nasty travel ban is that if you’ve been anywhere near those nations, even for professional reasons, you’re not allowed to enter the US. So some very prominent people have recently been refused entry, meaning they can’t address the UN, deliver keynote addresses to international conferences, continue important international research etc. 

 So with North Korea on the list, can Kim still come to the White House?


Apparently North Korea’s no longer on the list. Edited: no, I take that back: as of 7 hours ago, BBC and a couple of other sources all agreed it’s still there. 

I dunno. 


joanne said:
Apparently North Korea’s no longer on the list. Edited: no, I take that back: as of 7 hours ago, BBC and a couple of other sources all agreed it’s still there. 
I dunno. 

 So now that he has permission to have his little list, will it be updated weekly?  Will everyone watch it like the Dow? Or will it be even more mercurial like Studio's doorman? You're on the list, you're not.


Well, we have to read Julie Bishop's (and Potato-head Dutton's) list of places to avoid before thinking of buying tickets anywhere.  I reckon it'll be like that: you'll need to keep checking thrice daily. It'll change on the whim of a tweet. Just be glad he doesn't indulge in emoticons, like Julie does. 

(Just read about some voting results: do they give you some hope?)


joanne said:
Well, we have to read Julie Bishop's (and Potato-head Dutton's) list of places to avoid before thinking of buying tickets anywhere.  I reckon it'll be like that: you'll need to keep checking thrice daily. It'll change on the whim of a tweet. Just be glad he doesn't indulge in emoticons, like Julie does. 
(Just read about some voting results: do they give you some hope?)

 Last night the big surprise was that 28 year old Alexandria Ocasio - Cortez who worked on Bernie's campaign but has never held public office, beat  New York City Dem. Representative. Joe Crowley who has been in Congress since 1999. Many people thought he would replace Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Queens County is the part of NYC that Trump and I come from.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.