The United States Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Wednesday in the legal fight over its restrictive policy requiring Central American asylum seekers to apply for asylum in Mexico first before attempting to do so in the U.S.
This is the Court’s opinion in its entirety – Sotomayor’s dissent is much longer:
“The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction and September 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.”
So the decision is just a grant of a stay pending appeal. Apparently the AG has not yet filed a petition for cert., although I assume that will come. I could not tell from the opinion whether all 9 justices participated in the decision.
Come on some legal expert convince me that our SCOTUS is not a shitshow of activist from the conservative nominated and confirmed by the GOP and it’s good ol’ message from the new deal civil rights era john birch, we are originalist, we only see the constitution as “dead, dead, dead” and its those activist are the only problem.
They have spent decades and billions make their base just as activist, just as fired up and connected, just as financed to support rules and policy that serves the interest of the wealthy, the rich, the nepotists, the authority, against and over each and every single individual american. These are not laws that favor the rights of the individual, they preserve the right of the mighty whether it be by money or status over those americans who do not societaly sit at the same level.
It is clear that they are not interested in righting wrongs but merely propping up a system which supports their church, their perspective, their “culture”, their americans not all americans.
Whatever happened to “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters, irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section.”? (8 US Code §1158)
The only legitimately applicable exception is removal to a safe third country and Mexico has refused the US request to be designated as a safe third country. That leaves Guatemala, but the Court said the asylum seekers have to stay in Mexico.
“Under the rule, migrants from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala will automatically be denied asylum in the U.S. unless their applications for asylum in Mexico are rejected.”
“If their applications for asylum in Mexico are rejected, the rule requires them to bring Trump the Wicked Mitch’s broomstick. If they somehow manage that, the rule requires them to destroy all seven of Stephen Miller’s horcruxes. If they additionally manage that, the rule requires them to retrieve a larval endoparasitoid from Kellyanne’s subterranean lair, survive the taco bowl from Trump Tower, AND correctly give the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow (African or European). Unless they’re white.”
Fucking pieces of shit.
Do we need 60 votes in the Senate to expand the Supreme Court?
No. A simple majority can expand or contract the number of Justices. The 60 vote threshold would only be needed to override a filibuster or a Presidential veto.
Thank You!
You forgot about the shrubbery …
Does “contracting” the Court require impeaching the “extra” justices?
Semi-relatedly, if Dems contract the Senate, wouldn’t that leave the door open for Roberts to choose which justices get removed?
Actually, we don’t need to expand the court; we just need to put in place an age at which the Justices need to retire, guaranteeing turnover.
Absolutely great. Asylum policy is not a suicide pact. We can and must regulate it. Now, if SCOTUS would clamp down on the 9th, that would be wonderful
As usual, TPM has an exploitative and click-bait headline claiming that this is “harsh”. It’s not harsh. It saves them a lot of traveling.
Nope. It’s a simple act of Congress and restructuring the Court can be passed like any other law. They can also decide which Justices will be removed.
Well, if it’s white, then it must be a European unladen swallow.
Whatever happened to Art 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Whatever happened the 1951 UN Convention on the rights of refugees?
This country is now officially an evil power. It rejects the very notion of human rights and international law.
Get used to it. Because of our stupidity in failing to support our party in election cycle after election cycle, we have turned the Federal courts over to the right for a generation.
There’s no point in having all these debates about various progressive policies. None of it will ever happen because it will all be overturned by the right-wing courts. We have totally fucked ourselves.
Face it: their side was much smarter than ours. They played the long game.
Jus soli (birthright citizenship) based on being physically born in a certain place is largely a doctrine of the New World. Partly it was meant to accommodate immigration and partly to overlook what happened to indigenous and enslaved people. In most countries, citizenship is determined by the citizenship of the parents, often with exemptions for the national disaspora. We can now gather thousands of data points on just about anybody in the world, so there really is no need for full-on jus soli, and thus this motivation to have a kid on US soil. One idea might be to keep jus soli with restrictions as in Australia, Israel or the UK. It would certainly dampen the immigration discussion. Based on personal experience, I would also note the US already uses the global-standard jus sanguinis doctrine in parallel with birthright citizenship in the case of children born abroad where at least one parent is a US citizen. Of course, that citizen better get his or her butt down to the embassy asap with newborn in hand if that citizen does not want to face a bureaucratic nightmare.
So much for the often stated Protection Under the Law.
What aren’t we building a wall on the Northern border and making Canada pay for it? It’s wide open!
There’s not telling how many armed terrorists have crossed over that border! With a few thousand miles of nothing but tree’s separating the US from Canada, Trump must start building a wall!