Sotomayor omits "respectfully" from "I dissent" in voting case
| Tan Mind-boggling Location | 06/25/18 | | lime dashing church | 06/25/18 | | Navy Hissy Fit | 06/25/18 | | translucent field | 06/25/18 | | passionate juggernaut | 06/25/18 | | irate institution coffee pot | 06/26/18 | | Sooty Foreskin | 06/25/18 | | khaki bat-shit-crazy jewess masturbator | 06/25/18 | | Black background story | 06/25/18 | | passionate juggernaut | 06/25/18 | | underhanded crusty spot | 06/25/18 | | Obsidian base | 06/25/18 | | judgmental glassy nursing home | 06/25/18 | | rose drunken national | 06/25/18 | | Abusive dingle berry | 06/25/18 | | Tan Mind-boggling Location | 06/26/18 | | vivacious sanctuary | 06/26/18 | | vivacious sanctuary | 06/26/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 25th, 2018 10:33 AM Author: Tan Mind-boggling Location
It does all of this to allow Texas to use electoral maps that, in design and effect, burden the rights of minority voters to exercise that most precious right that is “preservative of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 370 (1886); see Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 5) (“Our democracy rests on the ability of all individuals, regardless of race, income, or status, to exercise their right to vote”). Because our duty is to safeguard that fundamental right, I dissent
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4009772&forum_id=2#36305351) |
Date: June 25th, 2018 11:03 AM Author: judgmental glassy nursing home
Is there any lib pet issue that Sotomayor would break from her party on?
Even the hardcore originalists will break from political positions when it conflicts with their interpretational preferences.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4009772&forum_id=2#36305503) |
Date: June 26th, 2018 12:49 PM Author: Tan Mind-boggling Location
She did it again:
In the intervening years since Korematsu, our Nation has done much to leave its sordid legacy behind. See, e.g., Civil Liberties Act of 1988, 50 U. S. C. App. §4211 et seq. (setting forth remedies to individuals affected by the executive order at issue in Korematsu); Non-Detention Act of 1971, 18 U. S. C. §4001(a) (forbidding the imprisonment or detention by the United States of any citizen absent an Act of Congress). Today, the Court takes the important step of finally overruling Korematsu, denouncing it as “gravely wrong the day it was decided.” Ante, at 38 (citing Korematsu, 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting)). This formal repudiation of a shameful precedent is laudable and long overdue. But it does not make the majority’s decision here acceptable or right. By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one “gravely wrong” decision with another. Ante, at 38. Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most sacred legal commitments. Because the Court’s decision today has failed in that respect, with profound regret, I dissent.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4009772&forum_id=2#36312340) |
|
|