Yeah, we know, she’s the “wise Latina” of the Supreme Court. But from what we’ve seen, while this may be an accurate description of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s race, it is not a very accurate description of her approach to jurisprudence. One of the most entrenched leftists on the Supreme Court, Sotomayor reflexively takes the furthest left position possible, with an utter disregard for precedence, common sense, or the Constitution. And she once against demonstrated her “wisdom” this week when she dissented from the majority in overturning an injunction against the Trump administration’s new asylum rules.
The rules, put in place this summer, require would-be Central American refugees to apply for asylum in any “safe third country” they arrive in prior to reaching the United States border. For most migrants, this country will be Mexico.
Well, this was unacceptable to liberal activist Judge Jon Tigar, who slapped a nationwide injunction against the rule while lawsuits against the administration proceeded. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals quickly undid this injunction, however, limiting it only to those jurisdictions over which the 9th Circuit holds dominion. Tigar, apparently unrestrained by anything other than his own #Resistance-minded passions, restored the national injunction.
At this point, the Supreme Court had seen enough of this nonsense. They ruled last week that the injunction is off the table, allowing the Trump administration to begin enforcing the new asylum rules while the lawsuits proceed.
Sotomayor, however, was not pleased with this decision.
“Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote. “Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees — and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher — the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law.”
Wait, what? The “stake for asylum seekers could not be higher”? What does THAT have to do with the rule of law? What does that have to do with a president’s prerogative to enforce our border laws? Nothing about Sotomayor’s argument has anything to do with the Constitution, the law, or a district judge’s authority to make policy for the entire United States. It’s just her political opinion, nothing more.
Sotomayor then attacked the Trump administration for bringing the case to the Supreme Court in the first place.
“Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal,” she wrote. “Historically, the Government has made this kind of request rarely; now it does so reflexively. This is an extraordinary request. Unfortunately, the Court acquiesces. Because I do not believe the Government has met its weighty burden for such relief, I would deny the stay.”
Well, here’s the thing, Justice Sonia: The “Government” wouldn’t have to run to the Supreme Court every few months if we didn’t have a plague of activist judges making rulings that are entirely untethered to precedent or existing law. If you can’t see that the courts have treated Donald Trump as a kind of less-than-true-president, then you are either blind or you are infected with the same derangement that affects those judges.
Which, judging from your writings here and your history on the high court, appears to be the case.