No Fate: Supreme Court Edition

 

The Supreme Court as composed October 27, 2020 to presentThere is no arc of history towards socialism, and there is no demographic destiny leading to Democrat permanent rule. Today I sing the praises of Associate Justice Elena Kagen and all her colleagues. Justice Kagen, a 2010 Obama appointment, wrote for a unanimous court in rejecting a husband and wife team of illegal aliens’ claim that they should be eligible for green cards, permanent legal residence, because he was given temporary permission to stay here for many years. This result was all the more noteworthy as it involves a man who leveraged his temporary status here into a marriage with children, presumably given U.S. citizenship at birth.

Oral arguments were this April, with the government brief of Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. filed March 24. The leftist Democrat DOJ continued the Trump position on this case, signaling a slight braking on generating attractive nuisances to draw undocumented Democrat voters north. Perhaps this had something to do with actual voter’s behavior, shocking the Democrats who presumed they owned the votes of blacks and Latino/Hispanics. The Democrats presumably already had the news we are all now reading about working-class minorities shifting towards President Trump and Republicans who agreed with his economic, law enforcement, and public safety policies.

In this instance, the court members acted faithfully to their oath. They simply applied the law. Justice Kagan patiently walked through the facts and the law and made clear it was not even close. This was a case of statutory interpretation, rather than a fight over the Constitution. The government’s position is summarized in their brief’s table of contents [emphasis added]:

Argument: USCIS lawfully determined that recipients of temporary protected status who entered the United States without inspection and admission or parole are not eligible to adjust to lawful permanent resident status

The case hung on the meaning of “inspection and admission.” If the application and grant of Temporary Protected Status is interpreted as actual or constructive “inspection and admission,” then anyone who illegally enters and then successfully tells the right story gets on the road to permanent legal status and then possible citizenship. This Supreme Court opinion was a small but important check in favor of national sovereignty and our constitutional republic. We still have the right and power to say no to some who demand full access to our nation.

The case is Sanchez et ux. v. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. “Et ux.” means “and wife,” signaling that the man and his wife, as a marital unit petitioning the court for relief. The relevant lead administration official, here the Secretary of Homeland Security, is named as respondent. Here is the entire opinion, with emphasis added and footnotes moved to endnotes:

JOSE SANTOS SANCHEZ, ET UX., PETITIONERS v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

[June 7, 2021]

JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner Jose Santos Sanchez entered this country unlawfully from El Salvador. Years later, because of unsafe living conditions in that country, the Government granted him Temporary Protected Status (TPS), entitling him to stay and work in the United States for as long as those conditions persist. Sanchez now wishes to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States. The question here is whether the conferral of TPS enables him to obtain LPR status despite his unlawful entry. We hold that it does not.

I

Section 1255 of the immigration laws provides a way for a “nonimmigrant”—a foreign national lawfully present in this country on a designated, temporary basis—to obtain an “[a]djustment of status” making him an LPR. 8 U. S. C. §1255 (boldface deleted); see §1101(a)(15) (listing classes of nonimmigrants, such as students and tourists). Under that section, a nonimmigrant’s eligibility for such an adjustment to permanent status depends (with exceptions not relevant here) on an “admission” into this country. And an “admission” is defined as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” §1101(a)(13)(A). The admission—or, to use the definitional phrase, “lawful entry”—requirement appears in two pertinent provisions of §1255. One states that a nonimmigrant may become an LPR only if he has been “inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States.” §1255(a). And another states that a nonimmigrant who has previously worked without authorization in the United States may become an LPR only if his presence here is “pursuant to a lawful admission.” §1255(k)(1); see §1255(c)(2).[1]

A separate provision of immigration law establishes the TPS program, which provides humanitarian relief to foreign nationals in the United States who come from specified countries. See §1254a. The Government may designate a country for the program when it is beset by especially bad or dangerous conditions, such as arise from natural disasters or armed conflicts. The country’s citizens, if already present in the United States, may then obtain TPS. That status protects them from removal and authorizes them to work here for as long as the TPS designation lasts. A person’s unlawful entry into the United States will usually not preclude granting him TPS. See §1254a(c)(2)(A)(ii); 8 CFR §244.3 (2020). And relevant here, the TPS provision states: “[F]or purposes of adjustment of status under section 1255,” a person given TPS “shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, §1254a(f )(4). lawful status as a nonimmigrant.”

Jose Santos Sanchez is a citizen of El Salvador who has lived in the United States for more than two decades. He entered this country unlawfully in 1997—without “inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” §1101(a)(13)(A). Once here, he worked without legal authorization. In 2001, the Government designated El Salvador under the TPS program after a series of devastating earthquakes. Sanchez obtained TPS that year, and has held it ever since. In 2014, he applied under §1255 for an adjustment to LPR status.[2]

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Sanchez’s LPR application. Under §1255, the agency stated, Sanchez was ineligible for LPR status because he had not been lawfully admitted to the United States. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a. And in the agency’s view, his TPS provided no way around that bar. “Recipients of TPS,” the agency reasoned, “must still meet the threshold requirement” of a lawful entry. Id., at 46a. Or said otherwise: “A grant of TPS does not cure a foreign national’s entry without inspection or constitute an inspection and admission of the foreign national,” as demanded by §1255. Ibid.

Sanchez challenged the decision. The District Court granted summary judgment in his favor, relying on the statutory mandate that a TPS recipient “shall be considered as” having “lawful status as a nonimmigrant” for purposes of applying to become an LPR. See Santos Sanchez v. Johnson, 2018 WL 6427894, *4 (D NJ, Dec. 7, 2018) (citing §1254a(f )(4); emphasis deleted). According to the court, that provision requires treating TPS recipients “as though [they] had been ‘inspected and admitted.’” Ibid. But the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that “a grant of TPS does not constitute an ‘admission’ into the United States.” Sanchez v. Secretary U. S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 967 F. 3d 242, 252 (2020). The court observed that “admission” and “status” are separate concepts in immigration law. Id., at 246. So, the court concluded, providing a person with nonimmigrant status (as the TPS provision does) does not mean admitting him (as §1255 requires). See ibid. We granted certiorari, 592 U. S. ___ (2021), to resolve a Circuit split over whether a TPS recipient who entered the country unlawfully can still become an LPR.[3] We now affirm the Third Circuit’s decision that he cannot. The TPS program gives foreign nationals nonimmigrant status, but it does not admit them. So the conferral of TPS does not make an unlawful entrant (like Sanchez) eligible under §1255 for adjustment to LPR status.

II

Section 1255, applied according to its plain terms, prevents Sanchez from becoming an LPR. There is no dispute that Sanchez “entered the United States in the late 1990s unlawfully, without inspection.” Brief for Petitioners 13. But as earlier described, §1255 requires an LPR applicant like Sanchez to have entered the country “lawful[ly],” with “inspection”—that is, to have been admitted. §1101(a)(13)(A); see supra, at 1–2. Indeed, §1255 imposes an admission requirement twice over. Its principal provision states that an applicant for LPR status must have been “inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States.” §1255(a). And another provision says that a person who has worked without authorization in the country—as Sanchez did for several years—may become an LPR only if his presence in the United States is “pursuant to a lawful admission.” §1255(k). Sanchez has never claimed that he can, without aid from the TPS provision, satisfy those demands for admission. [4] A straightforward application of §1255 thus supports the Government’s decision to deny him LPR status. 

And nothing in the conferral of TPS changes that result. As noted earlier, a TPS recipient is “considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant” for the purpose of becoming an LPR. §1254a(f )(4); see supra, at 2. That provision ensures that, in applying for permanent residency, a TPS recipient will be treated as having nonimmigrant status—even if, like Sanchez, he really does not. See §1101(a)(15) (not including TPS recipients among the designated classes of “nonimmigrants”). It thus guarantees that every TPS recipient has the status traditionally and generally needed to invoke §1255’s adjustment process. See §1255 (titled “[a]djustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence” (boldface deleted)). But the provision does not aid the TPS recipient in meeting §1255’s independent legal-entry requirement. Lawful status and admission, as the court below recognized, are distinct concepts in immigration law: Establishing one does not necessarily establish the other. See supra, at 3–4. On the one hand, a foreign national can be admitted but not in lawful status—think of someone who legally entered the United States on a student visa, but stayed in the country long past graduation. On the other hand, a foreign national can be in lawful status but not admitted—think of someone who entered the country unlawfully, but then received asylum. The latter is the situation Sanchez is in, except that he received a different kind of lawful status. The TPS statute permits him to remain in the country; and it deems him in nonimmigrant status for purposes of applying to become an LPR. But the statute does not constructively “admit” a TPS recipient—that is, “consider[]” him as having entered the country “after inspection and authorization.” §1254a(f )(4); §1101(a)(13)(A). And because a grant of TPS does not come with a ticket of admission, it does not eliminate the disqualifying effect of an unlawful entry.

Sanchez resists this conclusion by asserting an “indissoluble relationship between admission and nonimmigrant status.” Reply Brief 2 (emphasis in original). While conceding that some forms of status (e.g., asylum) do not require admission, Sanchez contends that nonimmigrant status always does: “One cannot obtain lawful nonimmigrant status without admission.” Ibid. In support of that claim, Sanchez points to §1184 of the immigration laws, entitled “[a]dmission of nonimmigrants.” And he asserts that it is impossible to “identif[y] any category of individuals who are lawful nonimmigrants but are not admitted—because no such category exists.” Brief for Petitioners 20. So (Sanchez concludes) when the law provides that a TPS recipient shall be “considered . . . as a nonimmigrant” for purposes of §1255, it is necessarily saying that he shall also be considered as admitted.

But to begin with, §1184 does not (as Sanchez contends) require admission for nonimmigrant status. That provision states that “[t]he admission to the United States of any alien as a nonimmigrant shall be for such time and under such conditions as the [Secretary of Homeland Security] may by regulations prescribe.” §1184(a)(1). The section also provides that a foreign national is “presumed to be an immigrant until” he establishes “at the time of application for admission” that “he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status.” §1184(b). Section 1184 thus regulates the process for admitting foreign nationals as nonimmigrants. Suppose a foreign national wants to be admitted to the United States as a university student—a kind of nonimmigrant. He should look to §1184 (among other provisions) to find out what that will entail—what he must show and what that showing will entitle him to. Why, though, does that matter? No one denies that most foreign nationals obtain nonimmigrant status through an admission. So there is naturally a section in the immigration laws that specifies how that process works. But nothing in §1184 (or any other section) states that admission is a prerequisite of nonimmigrant status—or otherwise said, that the former is a necessary incident of the latter. And that is what Sanchez needs. For without such an “indissoluble” link, Reply Brief 2, there is no reason to view the TPS provision’s conferral of nonimmigrant status as also a conferral of admission.

In fact, individuals in two immigration categories have what Sanchez says does not exist: nonimmigrant status without admission. The first category is for “alien crewmen”—foreign nationals who serve on board a vessel or aircraft. §1101(a)(10). They receive nonimmigrant status when their vessel or aircraft “land[s]” in the United States. §1101(a)(15)(D)(i). But still the law provides that they are not “considered to have been admitted.” §1101(a)(13)(B). The second category is for foreign nationals who have been the victim of a serious crime in the United States and can assist with the investigation. Those individuals may receive nonimmigrant status even if they entered the country unlawfully—so even if they were not admitted. See §§1101(a)(15)(U), 1182(d)(14). And §1255 specifically recognizes that possibility. That section makes these so-called “U” nonimmigrants eligible for LPR status if they were either “admitted into the United States” or “otherwise provided nonimmigrant status.” §1255(m)(1). There could scarcely be a plainer statement of the daylight between nonimmigrant status and admission (except maybe for the alien crewmen provision). And that plain statement comes in a provision expressly enabling some unlawful entrants to adjust to LPR status. So when Congress does not speak in that manner—when it confers status, but says nothing about admission, for purposes of §1255—we have no basis for ruling an unlawful entrant eligible to become an LPR.

Sanchez objects that if the TPS provision confers only nonimmigrant status for §1255, it accomplishes precious little. See Reply Brief 11–13; Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. Less than he would like, of course: It would not make him, or other TPS recipients who entered the country unlawfully, LPR eligible. But some TPS recipients will benefit from the TPS provision’s conferral of nonimmigrant status for purposes of §1255. Recall that the provision gives all TPS recipients the status typically required to invoke §1255—that is, nonimmigrant status. See supra, at 5. Some TPS recipients need exactly that assistance—without needing a constructive admission. Consider, for example, a foreign national who entered the country legally on a tourist visa, but stayed on for several months after the visa’s expiration. He can satisfy §1255’s requirement of admission, but he founders in showing nonimmigrant status. The TPS provision relieves that difficulty and enables him to become an LPR. Congress, of course, could have gone further, by deeming TPS recipients to have not only nonimmigrant status but also a lawful admission. Legislation pending in Congress would do just that. See American Dream and Promise Act of 2021, H. R. 6, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., §203, p. 29 (introduced Mar. 3, 2021) (amending §1254a(f)(4) so that a TPS recipient shall be considered “as having been inspected and admitted into the United States, and” as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant” (emphasis added)). But even without that amendment, the statute does something—and this Court does not get to say that the something it does is not enough.

III

Section 1255 generally requires a lawful admission before a person can obtain LPR status. Sanchez was not lawfully admitted, and his TPS does not alter that fact. He therefore cannot become a permanent resident of this country. We affirm the judgment below. It is so ordered. 


[1]Section 1255(k)’s requirement of a lawful admission, unlike §1255(a)’s, applies even if the nonimmigrant has been paroled into the United States—that is, received temporary permission to enter the country “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” 8 U. S. C. §1182(d)(5)(A). So a nonimmigrant who has worked without authorization cannot rely on his parolee status (if any) to become an LPR.

[2] Sonia Gonzalez, Sanchez’s wife, is also a petitioner here. She claims LPR status derivatively, under a provision “entitl[ing her] to the same status” as her husband. §1153(d). We therefore focus on her husband’s application.

[3] Compare Sanchez v. Secretary U. S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 967 F. 3d 242, 245 (CA3 2020) (case below) (holding that such a person cannot do so); Nolasco v. Crockett, 978 F. 3d 955, 959 (CA5 2020) (same); Serrano v. United States Atty. Gen., 655 F. 3d 1260, 1265–1266 (CA11 2011) (per curiam) (same), with Velasquez v. Barr, 979 F. 3d 572, 578 (CA8 2020) (holding that he can); Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F. 3d 954, 958 (CA9 2017) (same); Flores v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 718 F. 3d 548, 553–554 (CA6 2013).

[4] The Government notes that Sanchez was treated as “paroled” when he returned from an authorized trip abroad after obtaining TPS. See Brief for Respondents 15, n. 5. But Sanchez has never claimed that this treatment made him eligible to adjust to LPR status under §1255(a). That is probably because the argument could not have mattered: §1255(k) stands as an independent prohibition on his invoking the LPR process. See supra, at 2, n. 1. We express no view on whether a parole of the kind Sanchez received enables a TPS recipient to become an LPR absent any other bar in §1255.

Published in Immigration
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 18 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    I remember reading, a few years ago, that the Justices tend to agree with each other more often than most people would suspect, given their political makeup. That suggests that there’s a thread of Constitutional jurisprudence running through it that might surprise the more skeptical among us. Nice thought, anyway.

    So, yes, a tip of the hat to the wise Latina and her partners in law.


    PS Yeah, I did that, attributed “wise Latina” to the wrong Justice. Mea culpa.

    The truth is, all women look the same to me.

    • #1
  2. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    So, yes, a tip of the hat to the wise Latina and her partners in law.

    I was trying to phrase a compliment for Elena Kagen, that didn’t give away too much since she’s to the left of Trotsky, but you beat me to it. Here it is, unbaked. 

    The interesting thing about the Court is how public perception of the Justices changes over time. Like, who’d have thought Roberts would prove inferior to Myers? (I’m thinking of Mike.) And even Elena Kagen, ivory tower creature of the left, can write well when she sticks to the law.

    Sotomayor, however, has remained predictably dull.

    • #2
  3. D.A. Venters Member
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I remember reading, a few years ago, that the Justices tend to agree with each other more often than most people would suspect, given their political makeup. That suggests that there’s a thread of Constitutional jurisprudence running through it that might surprise the more skeptical among us. Nice thought, anyway.

    So, yes, a tip of the hat to the wise Latina and her partners in law.

    The vast majority of rulings that judges issue across the country, at the various levels, have little impact on hot button political issues. They really do have to interpret statutes and regulations and contracts and case law through a certain judicial philosophy. Some are better than others, some more consistent than others, but most really are trying to get it right, without regard to politics.

    The media is awful, of course, nearly all the time, but they are particularly bad when it comes to legal reporting. It’s all outcome based reporting, which side won, and at least at the headline and lead paragraph level, very little analysis of why that side won.

    The recent case about the cop who apparently took $5,000 to use his police resources to snoop on someone is a great example. The court ruled in his favor, and many people were outraged thinking the court was giving cops the green light to do that. But all they really did was say that the statute used to prosecute that cop couldn’t be used that way. That may or may not have been good legal reasoning, but it was not in any way an approval of the cop’s behavior.

    So, when the reporting is that bad, casual news readers get a skewed view of judges and what they do.

    • #3
  4. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    Barfly (View Comment):

     

    Sotomayor, however, has remained predictably dull.

    Sotomayor should have been disqualified as soon as she admitted that she would bring Latin woman’s perspective to her decisions. What the hell would that be? And why would we want it? Did the founders write some sort of ethnic code into the Constitution that you will finally discover for us after 250 years?

    No thanks, lady.  We just need Constitutional Law, interpreted the way a wise person with an understanding of our American Constitution and its aims, thank you. You just admitted you will be biased in whatever way a “wise Latina” is biased. Not what we’re looking for in a plumber, and not what we’re looking for in a judge.  

    • #4
  5. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I remember reading, a few years ago, that the Justices tend to agree with each other more often than most people would suspect, given their political makeup. That suggests that there’s a thread of Constitutional jurisprudence running through it that might surprise the more skeptical among us. Nice thought, anyway.

    So, yes, a tip of the hat to the wise Latina and her partners in law.

    The vast majority of rulings that judges issue across the country, at the various levels, have little impact on hot button political issues. They really do have to interpret statutes and regulations and contracts and case law through a certain judicial philosophy. Some are better than others, some more consistent than others, but most really are trying to get it right, without regard to politics.

    The media is awful, of course, nearly all the time, but they are particularly bad when it comes to legal reporting. It’s all outcome based reporting, which side won, and at least at the headline and lead paragraph level, very little analysis of why that side won.

    The recent case about the cop who apparently took $5,000 to use his police resources to snoop on someone is a great example. The court ruled in his favor, and many people were outraged thinking the court was giving cops the green light to do that. But all they really did was say that the statute used to prosecute that cop couldn’t be used that way. That may or may not have been good legal reasoning, but it was not in any way an approval of the cop’s behavior.

    So, when the reporting is that bad, casual news readers get a skewed view of judges and what they do.

    I’m reminded of all the Republicans in Congress who have 90+% ratings on conservatism, while continually betraying their campaign promises and voters.  See, you can count on these guys when it comes to renaming a post office or passing a non-binding resolution, but when it comes to repealing Obamacare, not so much.

    Same with the justices.  The great majority of the time they agree; on issues no one but the participants could care less about.  It’s only on the issues that matter that there is any disagreement.

    • #5
  6. Eustace C. Scrubb Member
    Eustace C. Scrubb
    @EustaceCScrubb

    With all its faults, the Supreme Court is the least awful branch of government. Which is what upsets the Democrats so…

    • #6
  7. D.A. Venters Member
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I remember reading, a few years ago, that the Justices tend to agree with each other more often than most people would suspect, given their political makeup. That suggests that there’s a thread of Constitutional jurisprudence running through it that might surprise the more skeptical among us. Nice thought, anyway.

    So, yes, a tip of the hat to the wise Latina and her partners in law.

    The vast majority of rulings that judges issue across the country, at the various levels, have little impact on hot button political issues. They really do have to interpret statutes and regulations and contracts and case law through a certain judicial philosophy. Some are better than others, some more consistent than others, but most really are trying to get it right, without regard to politics.

    The media is awful, of course, nearly all the time, but they are particularly bad when it comes to legal reporting. It’s all outcome based reporting, which side won, and at least at the headline and lead paragraph level, very little analysis of why that side won.

    The recent case about the cop who apparently took $5,000 to use his police resources to snoop on someone is a great example. The court ruled in his favor, and many people were outraged thinking the court was giving cops the green light to do that. But all they really did was say that the statute used to prosecute that cop couldn’t be used that way. That may or may not have been good legal reasoning, but it was not in any way an approval of the cop’s behavior.

    So, when the reporting is that bad, casual news readers get a skewed view of judges and what they do.

    I’m reminded of all the Republicans in Congress who have 90+% ratings on conservatism, while continually betraying their campaign promises and voters. See, you can count on these guys when it comes to renaming a post office or passing a non-binding resolution, but when it comes to repealing Obamacare, not so much.

    Same with the justices. The great majority of the time they agree; on issues no one but the participants could care less about. It’s only on the issues that matter that there is any disagreement.

    Not sure I agree on this part. Like scientists, I think the justices generally agree on the easy questions.  It’s where the legal questions are complicated that you get the most diverse opinions. I’m not saying there aren’t times when political issues make things more complicated, and some judges get carried away by that, but you will find divided courts on relatively mundane matters too. The case I mentioned above is an example – no great political issues at stake, but it was a 6-3 decision if I recall correctly. 

    • #7
  8. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Over at the Dispatch, David French praised this decision.  He also notes that unlike Sonia Sotomayor who eschews the word “alien,” Elena Kagan uses the word in the proper manner, given that that is the very defined term, despite Sotomayor’s disfavor.  A good review.  From the 3:14 point in today’s podcast, which starts with this decision and then proceeds to the California District Court striking down California’s “assault weapon” ban.  https://advisoryopinions.thedispatch.com/p/californias-assault-weapons-ban-overturned

    • #8
  9. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    WOW

    • #9
  10. Hoyacon Inactive
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Kagan and Kavanaugh are reportedly pretty tight.  I’m not sure that’s a good thing.

    • #10
  11. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    So, when is the left going to dox Kagan and Sotomayor?

    • #11
  12. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Democracy) Thatcher
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Democracy)
    @GumbyMark

    When it comes to non-sacred parts of progressive doctrine, that is excluding abortion, sexual matters, commerce clause etc, the liberal justices can be surprisingly rational, though I have to admit I was surprised by this ruling given it was about immigration and lower courts had ruled the other way.

    Here’s the worrisome part – however much some of you think Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor (and the late Ginsburg) are Far Left, they are moderates compared to the judges put into place in the lower courts by Obama and now being nominated by Biden.  These younger judges have been marinated in the social justice factories that most of our law schools have been converted into and completely believe that it is only policy results that count not legal reasoning, doctrines of statutory interpretation, or constitutional theory – they reject the idea of neutral processes.  They will unfailingly “reason” to the right result.  In effect, the rising generation of progressive judges just view the courts as another type of legislative branch.

    • #12
  13. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Kagan and Kavanaugh are reportedly pretty tight. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.

    Remember Scalia and Ginsburg?  You can enjoy a friendship with someone without agreeing politically. My closest friend is a liberal who worships climate change, and I believe she’s totally misguided. She thinks the same thing about me I’m sure. However, we have much in common with our families that transcends the political world and never discuss it.

    • #13
  14. Hoyacon Inactive
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Kagan and Kavanaugh are reportedly pretty tight. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.

    Remember Scalia and Ginsburg? You can enjoy a friendship with someone without agreeing politically. My closest friend is a liberal who worships climate change, and I believe she’s totally misguided. She thinks the same thing about me I’m sure. However, we have much in common with our families that transcends the political world and never discuss it.

    That’s a good point, but Kavanaugh is not Scalia.  I suppose we’ll see when the Mississippi abortion case is decided.

    • #14
  15. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    I’m not a big court watcher, but some of the unanimous opinions lately seem unusual.  I wonder if they are trying to present a unified face as much as possible to forestall court packing.

    • #15
  16. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

     

    Sotomayor, however, has remained predictably dull.

    Sotomayor should have been disqualified as soon as she admitted that she would bring Latin woman’s perspective to her decisions. What the hell would that be? And why would we want it? Did the founders write some sort of ethnic code into the Constitution that you will finally discover for us after 250 years?

    No thanks, lady. We just need Constitutional Law, interpreted the way a wise person with an understanding of our American Constitution and its aims, thank you. You just admitted you will be biased in whatever way a “wise Latina” is biased. Not what we’re looking for in a plumber, and not what we’re looking for in a judge.

    Yeah, that was a missed opportunity to push back against the idea that government positions should be apportioned by race. She made identity politics explicit in her comment and that was offensive. 

    • #16
  17. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    TBA (View Comment):

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

     

    Sotomayor, however, has remained predictably dull.

    Sotomayor should have been disqualified as soon as she admitted that she would bring Latin woman’s perspective to her decisions. What the hell would that be? And why would we want it? Did the founders write some sort of ethnic code into the Constitution that you will finally discover for us after 250 years?

    No thanks, lady. We just need Constitutional Law, interpreted the way a wise person with an understanding of our American Constitution and its aims, thank you. You just admitted you will be biased in whatever way a “wise Latina” is biased. Not what we’re looking for in a plumber, and not what we’re looking for in a judge.

    Yeah, that was a missed opportunity to push back against the idea that government positions should be apportioned by race. She made identity politics explicit in her comment and that was offensive.

    There’s nothing wrong with a perspective.  That’s perfectly appropriate.  Bending the law is not, but having perspective is desired.  

    • #17
  18. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Even Ginsberg picked her spots. 

    When the issue is statutory language SCOTUS is pretty consistent.  In this case there was no challenge to an old judicial doctrine, no novel application of the Constitution or anything else in this case that would give a lefty jurist some open field running room. 

    Also, staking out the BS position of the lower courts with additional window dressing and cute novel theory in the face of the certain rejection of the court’s conservative majority would just make it marginally harder to get creative with immigration law later.

    • #18