Sotomayor omits "respectfully" from "I dissent" in voting case
| thriller depressive garrison | 06/25/18 | | mentally impaired marvelous abode yarmulke | 06/25/18 | | iridescent learning disabled jew piazza | 06/25/18 | | bearded fuchsia people who are hurt associate | 06/25/18 | | Mewling rusted dilemma toilet seat | 06/25/18 | | Low-t henna stain | 06/26/18 | | free-loading charismatic police squad lodge | 06/25/18 | | appetizing juggernaut | 06/25/18 | | Cracking marketing idea house | 06/25/18 | | Mewling rusted dilemma toilet seat | 06/25/18 | | Histrionic wine heaven | 06/25/18 | | electric buck-toothed senate | 06/25/18 | | Khaki laser beams rigpig | 06/25/18 | | infuriating bawdyhouse legal warrant | 06/25/18 | | Nudist Menage Fat Ankles | 06/25/18 | | thriller depressive garrison | 06/26/18 | | pearly soul-stirring trump supporter | 06/26/18 | | pearly soul-stirring trump supporter | 06/26/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 25th, 2018 10:33 AM Author: thriller depressive garrison
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: Khaki laser beams rigpig
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: thriller depressive garrison
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) |
|
|