Libruhl SCOTUS rules for migrants$#@!$#@$!!!

[jerryskids 5,206]

Quote

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Biden administration to end a Trump-era immigration policy that required migrants seeking asylum to remain in Mexico while their cases are reviewed, ending a year-long legal fight over a policy critics say contributed to a humanitarian crisis on the border.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a 5-4 majority. He was joined by Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the court's liberals. Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-biden-may-end-141609750.html

I wonder if the migrant lovers will now worship Kavanaugh, or will cognitive dissonance make their haids splode?   

[BufordT 371]

That's a nice lollipop for the libs.

[DonS 3,067]

 

 

[Mike Honcho 4,034]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-biden-may-end-141609750.html

I wonder if the migrant lovers will now worship Kavanaugh, or will cognitive dissonance make their haids splode?   

It was a procedural question, and IMO, it's embarrassing that 4 justices voted against it.  One president can make a policy but another can't change or implement his own, this court is becoming almost as hacky as this bored. 

[NorthernVike 2,080]

40 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

It was a procedural question, and IMO, it's embarrassing that 4 justices voted against it.  One president can make a policy but another can't change or implement his own, this court is becoming almost as hacky as this bored. 

You sound like a sore winner on this one.

[edjr 5,564]

The Supreme Court sadly has turned into the worst thing it could have. Partisan hacks

[jerryskids 5,206]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

It was a procedural question, and IMO, it's embarrassing that 4 justices voted against it.  One president can make a policy but another can't change or implement his own, this court is becoming almost as hacky as this bored. 

I don't know enough about the case to debate the procedural comment; if I learn more perhaps I'll revisit.   

But as I said in the Big Inquisition thread (I'm trying that out as my new name for it; not as catchy as Big Lie, thoughts?), you are watching a different movie.  In my movie, activist judges are by definition activist, eschewing the Constitution to implement social change that they believe in.  Their dissent of Dobbs was "we, uh, like abortion so it should be legal everywhere.  Also stare decisis$#@!" I will be surprised if any part of the SotoKagaBrown borg ever veers from Leftist ideology, as Kavanaugh did with (your interpretation of) conservative ideology.