Democrats know that if re-elected in November, President Trump is almost certain to have the opportunity to influence the Supreme Court for decades to come, resulting in a significant shift to the right in the high court’s balance.
All of which may explain the unhinged resistance to this president and the obsession Democrats have in trying to destroy him.
This possible influence lies just below the surface of a blistering rebuke by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in response to the high court siding with the Trump administration on enforcing its “public charge” rule in Illinois, which limits who can obtain visas to enter the U.S.
Sotomayor, a liberal jurist appointed by former President Barack Obama, complained that the conservative majority “was symptomatic of the court’s habit of siding with the government when they seek emergency stays of rulings against them,” according to Fox News.
“It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.
Lost in the mix, of course, is that the left challenges just about every action by this administration in the courts. Particularly so on matters involving immigration.
Yet, Sotomayor remarked on how it’s becoming “the new normal” for the majority to vote to put lower court injunctions on hold, adding it’s unusual for an administration to seek stays against injunctions with this sort of frequency, Fox News noted.
“Claiming one emergency after another, the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each,” she wrote. “And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow. Indeed, its behavior relating to the public-charge rule in particular shows how much its own definition of irreparable harm has shifted.”
Sotomayor would conclude: “I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decisionmaking process that this Court must strive to protect.”
Having appointed two justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, the president has already affected the balance of the court, which is why Democrats hope Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health holds up. About to turn 87 in a few weeks, Ginsburg had lung cancer surgery in Dec. 2018.
Justice Stephen Breyer, the second most liberal jurist behind Ginsberg, according to voting records, will turn 82 in August.
Keith Boykin, a CNN political commentator, took to Twitter to offer an interpretation of what Sotomayor was saying.
“Justice Sotomayor is warning us. If Trump wins, the Supreme Court and the federal bench will be lost for decades,” Boykin tweeted. “And all of your progressive plans on jobs, health care, education, immigration or criminal justice reform will be struck down by the courts.”
Justice Sotomayor is warning us.
If Trump wins, the Supreme Court and the federal bench will be lost for decades.
And all of your progressive plans on jobs, health care, education, immigration or criminal justice reform will be struck down by the courts.https://t.co/ULR1B5Mvcd
— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) February 22, 2020
This prompted a stinging reply by conservative actor James Woods, who did a little spot-on interpreting of his own.
“If by ‘lost’ you mean the Constitution will finally be respected again and judicial activism will be crushed, you betcha! And hopefully for longer than mere decades,” he tweeted.
If by “lost” you mean the Constitution will finally be respected again and judicial activism will be crushed, you betcha! And hopefully for longer than mere decades. https://t.co/otHyxffjUo
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) February 23, 2020
Here’s a sampling of responses to Woods’ tweet, proving that he’s far from being alone in his thought process:
Elections have consequences-activist judges will go away and be replaced by Const’l originalist judges.
— Howard Steele (@HowardSteele5) February 23, 2020
This would be fantastic, and all lower courts should be the same. following the constitution not making laws up as they go.
— ᎶᎬᏒᎪᏞᎠ ᏦᎾᏢᏞᎥᏆᏃ (@GeraldKoplitz) February 23, 2020
I am not a lawyer but by these justices (Sotomayor and Ginsburg) making these “anti-trump” statements…wont they have to recuse themselves on things related to trumps agenda?
— David Hof (@swisstexas) February 23, 2020
Can you imagine the epic meltdown that would commence should he get to appoint another justice? I would pay money to see that. Number one reason I voted for him…judges. Trump and Mitch are delivering big time.
— Say my name (@ratkat1973) February 23, 2020
— Peter M (@CSI1000) February 23, 2020
That would be answering many peoples prayers, having a Supreme Court made up of constitutional judges rather than activist judges like Sotomayor.
— Dawn Michael, PhD? (@SexCounseling) February 23, 2020
This is their biggest fear. 4 more years would mean a huge chance of more Trump SCOTUS nominees.
— Christina Strachan (@OMPdweller) February 23, 2020
James Woods nails it! The Dems are terrified by the potential addition of more “Trump Courts” resulting in a real “Rule of Law”!
— techwreck61 (@tekwrek) February 23, 2020
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Study reveals the mind-blowing cost of illegal immigration. Taxpayers buckle up! - March 8, 2023
- Jon Stewart unleashes vulgar rant on Fox News, conservatives over private communications - March 8, 2023
- Loomer launches Twitter attack on ‘Jill DeSantis’: ‘Pretending to be the Kennedys’ - March 8, 2023
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.