WhatsNew2Day
Latest News And Breaking Headlines

Justice Sotomayor BLASTS Conservatives of the Supreme Court about ruling on Trump’s new green card plan

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor put the Trump government and its conservative colleagues on the bank after banning the green sign for those who used food stamps, Medicaid or house vouchers.

In a 5-to-4 ruling on Friday, the conservative majority of the Court allowed the ‘wealth test’ of the administration for potential immigrants to enter into force while appeals make their way through the legal system.

The ruling was similar to that of the Supreme Court last month, against which the government appealed after a federal judge in New York issued a national order.

Friday’s Supreme Court ruling lifted a limited order that only applied to Illinois.

Sotomayor, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, criticized the Trump government for asking the Supreme Court to rule on its policy by claiming it was an emergency.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a hard dissidence Friday that accused conservative judges in the bank of being too eager to help the Trump government bypass the appeal process. Sotomayor can be seen in New York in May 2019 above

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a hard dissidence Friday that accused conservative judges in the bank of being too eager to help the Trump government bypass the appeal process. Sotomayor can be seen in New York in May 2019 above

The Trump government on Friday received the green light from the court to refuse green cards to those likely to use public benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps and vouchers. President Trump can be seen above on Sunday at the White House

The Trump government on Friday received the green light from the court to refuse green cards to those likely to use public benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps and vouchers. President Trump can be seen above on Sunday at the White House

The Trump government on Friday received the green light from the court to refuse green cards to those likely to use public benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps and vouchers. President Trump can be seen above on Sunday at the White House

The emergency requests from the administration are intended to “bypass the normal appeal process” and “push a thumb in favor of the party that won,” Sotomayor wrote in her different opinion.

Sotomayor accused conservative judges of granting preferential treatment to the administration, saying that “the most worrying thing is that the recent conduct of the Court” has benefited one party over all others. “

The other three liberals on the bank – Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan – also disagreed, but did not agree with Sotomayor’s opinion.

“Claiming one emergency after another, the government recently sought a stay in an unprecedented number of cases,” Sotomayor said.

“It is hard to say what is more disturbing – that the government would seem to look for this extraordinary relief, or that the Court would allow it.”

The government, for its part, has argued that it has requested emergency measures because the lower courts issue broad provisional orders that apply to states that were not party to the original trial.

HOW NEW RULES WORK

The rules for ‘public indictment’ apply to about three-quarters of the 544,000 who request green cards each year, most for ‘family reunification’ or because of marriage.

Immigrants who are said to be ‘public charges’ have long been a reason to refuse their application.

During the last 20 years, only actual benefits – TANF and SSI – or institutional long-term care institutions have been disqualified from the government.

Now they can be disqualified for the use of:

  • Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program food stamps
  • Social housing
  • Section 8 housing assistance
  • Most forms of Medicaid
  • State or local income assistance
  • 12 times use of one of the above benefits in 36 months is sufficient to disqualify someone.

In addition, immigration officials must decide whether someone can become a public indictment, even if they have not been in the past. To do that they can consider posive factors including:

  • they have family income, assets, resources and support from a sponsor who is 250% of the federal poverty guidelines for their household size. So a single person needs $ 31.3225 income or savings; if they are part of a couple, their income or savings must reach $ 42,275
  • do they have private insurance that is not subsidized by Medicare?
  • do they speak english?
  • do they have high school education or more?

The ruling on the so-called “public prosecutor” rule will take effect on Monday, while the case makes its way through the legal system.

The new policy considerably expands the factors that would be considered to make that decision, and if it is decided that immigrants may later become public charges, that legal residence may be denied.

Under the old rules, people who used non-cash benefits, including food stamps and Medicaid, were not considered to be public charges.

“This last rule will protect hard-working American taxpayers, protect welfare programs for really needy Americans, reduce the federal deficit and restore the fundamental legal principle that newcomers to our society must be financially self-reliant and not dependent on the size of US taxpayers States, “the White House said in a statement Saturday.

Sotomayor said the conservative judges helped the Trump government, causing the appellate trial to fail.

She wrote that it was part of a “now familiar pattern.”

“The government is seeking emergency assistance from this Court” [after the lower courts decline to approve its rulings] and the Supreme Court “accepted the reflexive requests of the government all too quickly.”

Sotomayor accused conservative judges of wanting to intervene more on behalf of the Trump government than prisoners of death row.

“The court often allows executions – where the risk of irreparable damage is the loss of lives – to continue, which justifies many of those decisions about alleged shortcomings to” submit potentially deserving claims in time, “she wrote.

“I fear that this inequality in treatment will override the fair and balanced decision-making process that this Court must seek to protect.”

The public indictment case is the 24th case in which the Trump government has requested the Supreme Court to lift an order issued by a lower court.

According to Obama, the governments of Obama and George W. Bush combined this eight times CNN.

Last month, justice Neil Gorsuch, the conservative judge appointed by Trump, issued a competition explaining the court’s decision.

In voting to abolish the national order, Gorsuch issued an opinion criticizing the “increasingly frequent” use of national orders by national courts to stop government policy. Gorsuch urged the court to address the issue.

“What can we be proud of in this game and chaos?” Asked Gorsuch.

Sotomayor and the other three liberals disagreed - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. The judges are seen at the top left and top left: Neil Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Ginsburg, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Breyer

Sotomayor and the other three liberals disagreed - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. The judges are seen at the top left and top left: Neil Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Ginsburg, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Breyer

Sotomayor and the other three liberals disagreed – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. The judges are seen at the top left and top left: Neil Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Ginsburg, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Breyer

“It has become increasingly clear that at some point this court must face these important objections to this ever-broader practice,” wrote Justice Gorsuch.

“As the short and furious history of the regulation illustrates to us, the routine issuance of universal orders is clearly unworkable, and is creating chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

“I agree with the court’s decision to issue a stay,” Gorsuch continued.

“But I also hope that we can answer some of the underlying just and constitutional questions raised by the emergence of national orders at a suitable time.”

Two other federal courts have previously ordered national orders lifted by lower courts that blocked the rule.

.