Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you read it? She states that dependency on public assistance shouldn't be grounds for immigration inadmissability. She's wrong, of course, according to the law that was in place more than a century before the Trump Admin.
Do you want to address the fact that you fabricated a quote to support your position? Or maybe the fact that the portion of her dissent that is the subject of this thread has little to do with this particular case and everything to do with the overuse of emergency interlocutory relief?
Of course, ironically, the fact that you are even able to discuss Supreme Court justice's views before issue is completely litigated in the lower courts highlights the very problem she addresses in her dissent. But its likely that point is lost on you...
Do you want to address the fact that you fabricated a quote to support your position? Or maybe the fact that the portion of her dissent that is the subject of this thread has little to do with this particular case and everything to do with the overuse of emergency interlocutory relief?
Of course, ironically, the fact that you are even able to discuss Supreme Court justice's views before issue is completely litigated in the lower courts highlights the very problem she addresses in her dissent. But its likely that point is lost on you...
That term is not in her dissent either. You are doing exactly that which you fault the party you are responding to. Will you care to address it?
Do you want to address the fact that you fabricated a quote to support your position? Or maybe the fact that the portion of her dissent that is the subject of this thread has little to do with this particular case and everything to do with the overuse of emergency interlocutory relief?
Of course, ironically, the fact that you are even able to discuss Supreme Court justice's views before issue is completely litigated in the lower courts highlights the very problem she addresses in her dissent. But its likely that point is lost on you...
Seriously? Sotomayor states that dependency on public assistance shouldn't be grounds for immigration inadmissability. She's wrong, of course, according to the law that was in place more than a century before the Trump Admin.
Seriously? Sotomayor states that dependency on public assistance shouldn't be grounds for immigration inadmissability. She's wrong, of course, according to the law that was in place more than a century before the Trump Admin.
So the answer is no, you won't address your outright lie or that the fact that substance of her dissent goes far beyond this particular case. Not surprising.
Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, criticized what she described as a troubling pattern of the conservative justices ruling in favor of the Trump administration without looking at these cases in an objective manner.
“Today’s decision follows a now-familiar pattern,†she wrote. “The Government seeks emergency relief from this Court, asking it to grant a stay where two lower courts have not. The Government insists — even though review in a court of appeals is imminent — that it will suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not grant a stay. And the Court yields.â€
The underlined connects the dots for you. She says there is a pattern. The government (Trump) wants something and the Supreme Court yields to their desires.
That term is not in her dissent either. You are doing exactly that which you fault the party you are responding to. Will you care to address it?
An emergency stay is a form of interlocutory relief. Sotomayor dedicates her dissent from page 5 onward to her concern that "the Government has come to treat 'the exceptional mechanism' of stay relief as a new normal." In other words she expressly addresses her issues with what appears to be the overuse of emergency interlocutory relief.
This isn't that hard. I shouldn't have to walk you through really basic stuff like this that even a child could grasp.
So the answer is no, you won't address your outright lie or that the fact that substance of her dissent goes far beyond this particular case. Not surprising.
It's not a lie. Sotomayor states that dependency on public assistance shouldn't be grounds for immigration inadmissability. She's wrong, of course, according to the law that was in place more than a century before the Trump Admin.
An emergency stay is a form of interlocutory relief. Sotomayor dedicates her dissent from page 5 onward to her concern that "the Government has come to treat 'the exceptional mechanism' of stay relief as a new normal." In other words she expressly addresses her issues with what appears to be the overuse of emergency interlocutory relief.
This isn't that hard. I shouldn't have to walk you through really basic stuff like this that even a child could grasp.
OK then. According to you.
If someone gives opinion and it's not a direct quote - You call them a liar.
When you give an opinion and it's not a direct quote - Perfectly find and dandy.
You can't have it both ways. It's a cheap shot. It's clear the party you are speaking to isn't making up nonsense about that dissent.
It's not a lie. Sotomayor states that dependency on public assistance shouldn't be grounds for immigration inadmissability. She's wrong, of course, according to the law that was in place more than a century before the Trump Admin.
You quoted Sotomayor opining that upholding the immigration rule change was "putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the Trump administration." That was a lie.
If someone gives opinion and it's not a direct quote - You call them a liar.
When you give an opinion and it's not a direct quote - Perfectly find and dandy.
You can't have it both ways. It's a cheap shot. It's clear the party you are speaking to isn't making up nonsense about that dissent.
If you ascribe a direct quote to someone and they never said it, it was a lie. It is particularly wrong to do so in a misleading way. If you accurately summarize the content of someone's statement, then yes, perfectly fine and dandy.
I honestly don't know how some people are capable of getting out of bed and tying their shoes in the morning if they don't understand basics like this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
