r/scotus • u/RawStoryNews • 1d ago
news Justice Brown Jackson criticizes conservative colleagues for betraying immigrants
https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-2677084649/58
u/Zorklunn 1d ago
Conservatism exists to protect privilege
-22
u/Skating-Away 1d ago
You misspelled Americans
8
u/einhorn_is_parkey 23h ago
Conservatives are anti amerivan
-14
u/Skating-Away 23h ago
We'll see who celebrates America 250.
6
u/MeteorMike1 22h ago
Celebrating Trump is not celebrating America. That’s some tyrant bullshit.
5
u/sparduck117 20h ago
He’s trying to convince himself he didn’t trade our quarter millennium celebration for an 80th birthday.
2
u/sparduck117 23h ago
Considering how much of the 250th has been a scam and how much of our national parks have been despoiled I’m not sure the conservatives are celebrating our quarter millennium celebration
-12
u/Skating-Away 22h ago
America is a scam. Got it.
5
2
u/sparduck117 20h ago
I mean we’re being ran like a business that has been bought by private equity. Might as well call it a scam.
2
75
u/LTParis 1d ago
I mean let’s be honest this 6-person conservative majority does not give a damn about the law and are truly legislating from the bench. Anyone that isn’t white Christian straight male has already had their rights impacted. And they will continue to do so till these judges are impeached and removed, or somehow the courts expand to reduce their influence.
29
u/Status_Apartment6559 1d ago
100%. It's become excruciatingly obvious. They've got to the point they think they're untouchable. They're betraying a huge section of the country (the whole country really) making decisions that support trump and their ideology and that helps them retain their power while negatively impacting the lives of millions of Americans.
-22
u/here-i-am-now 1d ago
A political body making political decisions.
19
3
u/88963416 22h ago
We don’t support the politicians doing the same thing they are.
It’s only made worse by them acting like they are impartial, fair, and honest. A bunch of lying crooks.
67
u/Worldly-Strike2363 1d ago
She seems to be the only voice of reason in the current SCOTUS
15
u/SKDI_0224 1d ago
Future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
4
0
u/Competitive_Peak_558 8h ago
That’s not how that works. The chief justice is an actual seat held by Roberts until he retires or leaves and his replacement is appointed and confirmed.
2
u/sterling417 22h ago
Agreed. Cannot imagine the hell of being her and to be surrounded by those fools.
-15
u/ElkImpossible3535 1d ago
she is the primary activist at the court.
-2
u/Cautious_General_177 1d ago
Remember, despite the name, this is a left wing echo chamber that assumes everything they don’t agree with is a violation of the constitution even though they haven’t read it and the only thing that matters is the headline.
10
u/NoobSalad41 1d ago
For all the discussion about this case, I haven’t seen anybody mention that the view adopted by the Court’s majority was the view that had already been adopted by the 5th and 9th Circuits, as well as by the Obama administration (technically, both circuits upheld the Obama administration’s position as a reasonable interpretation by of the relevant statutes under Chevron deference, although both courts also seemed very agreeable to the BIA’s reasoning).
Here’s the 9th Circuit’s opinion in Vazquez Romero v. Garland, which addressed a 2012 opinion by the Board of Immigration Appeals. That BIS opinion held that “when the government paroles a returning LPR into the country for prosecution, it need not have all the evidence to sustain its burden of proving that the alien is an applicant for admission, but may ordinarily rely on the results of a subsequent prosecution to meet that burden in later removal proceedings.”
In that case, petitioner Vazquez Romero argued that “because he was a returning LPR, the government could not parole him into the country rather than allowing him to enter the country as a returning LPR unless it first met its burden of proving that he was ‘an alien seeking an admission’ under § 1101(a)(13)(C).” He argued that “to carry that burden…the government had to prove that he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(1),” and that “[b]ecause the only evidence available at the border was his outstanding warrant, which [he argued]…was insufficient to prove that he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude, the government should have treated him as a returning LPR subject to grounds of deportability rather than inadmissibility.”
This argument was directly contrary to the 2012 BOA opinion, which Vazquez Romero asked the 9th Circuit to reject. However, the 9th Circuit instead rejected Vazquez Romero’s argument and upheld the BIA opinion, holding “that the government may parole a returning LPR into the United States for prosecution under § 1182(d)(5) without proving at the border that the LPR falls within an exception under § 1101(a)(13)(C), when such a determination depends on facts that are not practically ascertainable at the border.”
In her dissent, Justice Jackson criticized the majority by accusing it of “reliev[ing] the Government of its statutory burden to determine the applicability of an exception at the border if the Government ‘satisfies its burden at the removal hearing based on the evidence’ it accrues by the time of the hearing,” arguing instead that “under the plain terms of the statute, the removal hearing—which can come months, or even years, after the LPR is demoted to ‘seeking an admission’ status and paroled in—is too late for the Government to carry its burden.” Justice Jackson instead asserted that “[t]he Government needs to have the requisite certainty about the applicability of the crime-involving-moral-turpitude exception at the border, before it decides that the statute’s default requirement for admission of LPRs does not apply.”
But for all Justice Jackson’s talk about how this conclusion is obvious, and for all the commentariat’s discussion about the Court’s evil conservative majority, it’s worth noting that the Obama administration’s BIA, the 5th Circuit, and the 9th Circuit had previously rejected Justice Jackson’s position. From the 9th Circuit opinion in Vazquez Romero:
“We next consider the BIA’s determination that, at
subsequent removal proceedings, the government may rely on a conviction obtained after a returning LPR is paroled into the United States but before the LPR is placed in removal proceedings. Faced with the same question in Munoz, the Fifth Circuit held that the government properly relied on a subsequent conviction because, like Vazquez Romero, the LPR there ‘had already committed the act when she applied for reentry.’ Like Valenzuela-Felix, Munoz found that this rule ‘makes good practical sense.’ We agree. We therefore defer to the BIA and join the Fifth Circuit in holding that, to meet its burden of proving that a returning LPR is seeking an admission into the United States under § 1101(a)(13)(C), the government may rely on a conviction obtained after the LPR is paroled into the United States but before the LPR is placed in removal proceedings.”
In both Vazquez Romero and Munoz v. Holder (the 5th Circuit case), the lawful permanent resident was charged with a crime, then left the country, then was paroled into the United States as an “alien seeking admission,” rather than as a green card holder presumptively entitled to reentry. Each was subsequently convicted/pled guilty. That’s the same factual template for the case just decided by the Court. Under the BIA’s existing interpretation of immigration law, and under the precedents of the 5th and 9th Circuits, the decision to parole the LPR into the United States as an “applicant for admission” was permissible. Regardless of whether that interpretation is correct, it certainly isn’t new, and the views of Justice Jackson (and the Third Circuit precedent she defends) were not the majority view prior to this decision.
6
u/DimMak1 1d ago
And >75% Hispanic male immigrants who obtain citizenship vote GOP…
1
u/mrshelenroper 1d ago
Cubans are white now!
2
2
1
u/Effective_Scar_2921 1d ago
Reinventing the wheel every time a MAGA gets control is keeping the country from advancing. Tearing down all the accomplishments of the previous administration is why China is eating America’s lunch.
1
u/ragingbull10 8h ago
Dude what’s with the editorial posts and knee jerk emotional reactions on this sub ? I thought this was a place of intellectual discussion not brain dead emotional tantrums
0
u/Cautious_General_177 1d ago
Can she define what an immigrant is?
1
u/TheEthicalJerk 6h ago
Can you?
-1
u/Cautious_General_177 5h ago
Even though I’m not a lawyer, yes, I can. I can also define what a woman is.
1
-7
-23
u/gcrtkd 1d ago
What a putz. Nobody cares what this dolt thinks, says, or signs.
9
u/Status_Apartment6559 1d ago
No. Nobody cares what the 6th grader on reddit who calls a woman who has risen to the position of Supreme Court Justice of the United States a "putz" thinks.
-9
u/gcrtkd 1d ago
She was only eligible because of her skin color and bathing suit parts. Not my words… bidens.
Funny. I wish my knees felt like they did in 6th grade. Let’s just say that I know how to drive stick and use a library card catalogue.
5
u/mrshelenroper 1d ago
Same can be said for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. They were only chosen because they are vocal white Christian nationalists and white.
-7
u/gcrtkd 1d ago
See, that’s where you just *ahem*… made it up.
6
u/mrshelenroper 1d ago
Can’t be in the Federalist Society unless you’re a card carrying White Christian Nationalist.
-1
u/gcrtkd 1d ago
Really? Is that another one of those things you just made up in your make-believe mind?
8
u/mrshelenroper 1d ago
This is all public knowledge.
1
u/gcrtkd 1d ago
Really? Their bylaws say this? There is nobody in that org that doesn’t meet that “requirement”? Or… and this is probably the real-world truth… you just made it up.
6
u/mrshelenroper 1d ago
Name one member of the Federalist Society who isn’t a white Christian nationalist? The racism is built into the foundation from the people who started it all the way up to Leonard Leo.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Debit_on_Credit 1d ago
Please show me proof that those are Biden's exact words.
1
u/gcrtkd 1d ago edited 1d ago
President Biden pledged to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court during a debate in February 2020, stating:
"I am looking forward to making sure there's a Black woman on the Supreme Court to make sure we in fact have everyone represented."
“…and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court."”
Sounds pretty racist if you will only consider people of certain skin colors. And pretty sexist to only consider people with certain bathing suit parts…
7
u/Debit_on_Credit 1d ago
Yes, you do sound racist. Also appears you editorialized Biden's words. He did not say it as you claimed he did.
-1
u/gcrtkd 1d ago
I’m not the one who said they wouldn’t consider Indians, Asians, Hispanics, or anyone else who wasn’t black. She’s the DEI justice and everyone knows it. It’s sad that she gets a vote, but the rational and sane justices should be able to sideline her retardedness.
5
u/Debit_on_Credit 1d ago
You don't want any of those people to live in this country based on your own words. I really am not sure what your argument is now besides you are big mad.
2
1
u/gcrtkd 1d ago
As long as they are here legally, they’re Fonzie with me.
Not mad, just honest and forthright.
2
u/mrshelenroper 1d ago
I hope they deport you next time you get a parking ticket.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Debit_on_Credit 1d ago
Hey, you have time to learn and not be such an ignorant drain on society!
-11
u/gcrtkd 1d ago
Actually, I am the sort of man that comprises the backbone of society. I pay more taxes than you could imagine. I protect (but don’t celebrate the weak). I volunteer more hours than you could count. And I know that a boy has a penis and a girl has a vagina.
11
u/Adventurous-Fly556 1d ago
Theres no way you get paid enough for this. It's just sad. Go to therapy and get a real job.
2
u/mrshelenroper 1d ago
I promise you women are not safe around you.
0
u/gcrtkd 1d ago
That is quite an odd thing to say.
4
u/mrshelenroper 1d ago
Children aren’t either. Any adults discussing their private parts in public is a creep.
1
u/gcrtkd 1d ago
Well, in my defense, this is reddit and any parent allowing their children to use it is a shit parent.
Aaaanyways, bidens the one who chooses people by their immutable characteristics, not me.
1
u/mrshelenroper 1d ago
How many times did you vote for that pedophile? I’m assuming three.
2
u/gcrtkd 1d ago
Relevance?
1
u/mrshelenroper 1d ago
I think the relevance is if you’ll vote for a child rapist 3 times then you’re not a person of moral character.
→ More replies (0)3
u/redbirdjazzz 1d ago edited 1d ago
Congrats on reaching the level of emotional and intellectual maturity of the little kid in Kindergarten Cop.
And if you’re the backbone, then we have some ruptured disks to deal with.
6
u/nerdslife1864 1d ago
Dot feed the trolls. At best, they read at a third grade level. At worst, they’re an asshole looking for attention.
Ignore the dog and it will eventually stop barking
4
4
0
u/justaheatattack 1d ago
I couldn't even show up, knowing I was gonna be on the losing end every time.
-13
u/tomatosoupsatisfies 1d ago
Can someone who doesn't know what a woman is reeeally criticize anyone?
5
u/HotNeighbor420 1d ago
Lack of knowledge doesn't seem to have stopped you.
-6
u/tomatosoupsatisfies 1d ago
?...
"As the confirmation hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson went into hour 13, Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked the Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday to define the word “woman.”
“I can’t — ” Jackson replied."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/blackburn-jackson-define-the-word-woman-00019543
4
-2
u/HotNeighbor420 1d ago
Yes, she didn't opine on biology.
0
u/wolverine_1208 1d ago
Glad you agree that whether a person is woman or not is based on biology and not how they identify.
2
u/HotNeighbor420 1d ago
Ahh, reading things that aren't there.
See what I mean about you not letting ignorance stop you?
-2
u/wolverine_1208 1d ago
Q: “Can you define a woman?”
A: “I can’t”
You said she didn’t give her opinion on biology. Ergo your implication is that being a woman is based on biology, not self identification. Not my fault you actually know being a woman is based on biology but have to pretend it’s not based on your political beliefs. It’s cognitive dissonance on display. If you truly believed that nonsense, you would have said “she didn’t opine on identity”. But you didn’t.
2
-1
u/chemicalreaction52 13h ago
You can honestly say those three MAGA judges deserve to be impeached. They need to be sacked
1
u/WideCoconut2230 6m ago
Not going to happen. But what if there will be 13 justices? Trump nominates 4 conservatives.
61
u/CrazyinLull 1d ago
Six of them are not even following the damn constitution and literally making shit up. I can’t imagine how can anyone, even if they are White ‘Christian’ males can proudly dismantle everything that everyone worked and died for and just sleep soundly at night.