Sotomayor omits "respectfully" from "I dissent" in voting case
| Salmon hall telephone | 06/25/18 | | dead wagecucks plaza | 06/25/18 | | hairraiser goyim round eye | 06/25/18 | | soul-stirring well-lubricated forum | 06/25/18 | | bistre glittery box office black woman | 06/25/18 | | cerebral yarmulke | 06/26/18 | | mind-boggling generalized bond | 06/25/18 | | floppy harsh mad-dog skullcap dog poop | 06/25/18 | | Curious Charcoal Trump Supporter | 06/25/18 | | bistre glittery box office black woman | 06/25/18 | | Excitant Resort | 06/25/18 | | Milky boyish jap meetinghouse | 06/25/18 | | olive dashing boltzmann factory reset button | 06/25/18 | | very tactful piazza mexican | 06/25/18 | | Amethyst low-t tanning salon deer antler | 06/25/18 | | Salmon hall telephone | 06/26/18 | | Flushed provocative headpube reading party | 06/26/18 | | Flushed provocative headpube reading party | 06/26/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 25th, 2018 10:33 AM Author: Salmon hall telephone
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: olive dashing boltzmann factory reset button
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: Salmon hall telephone
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) |
|
|