Trump demands that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor ‘reuse’ themselves of administrative matters
Donald Trump went on a press conference in India on Tuesday in an attack on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, after claiming that they should both abstain from future matters related to his presidency.
He told a room full of American and Indian reporters that he always felt that Ginsburg, 86, had to refuse herself since she went wild during the 2016 campaign and is anti-Trump.
The president added that Sotomayor, 65, should do the same because he says she is trying to “be ashamed” of other justice to vote with her.
“I just don’t know how they can deprive themselves of anything related to Trump or Trump related,” Trump said at a press conference at the end of his trip to India.
“The right thing is to do that – the Supreme Court is a different norm, but at the same time I think it’s a higher norm in a way. So they have to decide what to do, “said the president of the two female Justices appointed by the Democrats.
Donald Trump doubted his claim that Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotmayor justify having to refuse himself from future cases involving himself or his administration
“I just don’t know how they can’t rob themselves of anything that has anything to do with Trump or Trump related,” Trump said at a press conference Tuesday to conclude his trip to India
Trump said he always believed that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 86, should remove himself from business because she is anti-Trump. “I always thought justice Ginsburg should do it because she went wild during the campaign when I ran,” Trump said
His calls to Sonia Sotomayor to do the same came after she had a persistent divergent opinion about a Trump administration case
Trump went on to explain the reasoning behind the statement he made on Monday and called on the two Justices to withdraw from future cases.
“Well, it’s very clear. I mean, I always thought that justice Ginsburg should do it because she went wild during the campaign when I was running, “Trump said about progressive justice. “She said some things that were clearly very inappropriate. Later she more or less apologized. I wouldn’t say it was an apology, but she more or less apologized. “
“And then Justice Sotomayor said what she said yesterday. You know very well what she said yesterday – it was a big story, “he said.
It is extremely unusual for Supreme Court judges to withdraw from cases that reach their offices.
This usually only happens when one of the Justices was previously involved in the cases at a lower level before joining the highest US court.
The President’s remarks refer to a sharply different opinion that Sotomayor wrote in a case concerning the extension of governmental powers by the Trump government to refuse visas to non-citizens who want to enter the US
“It is hard to say what is more worrying: that the government would seem to take such extraordinary relief for granted, or that the Court would allow it,” Sotomayor wrote in her different opinion on the matter.
“Claiming one emergency after the other, the government recently sought a stay in an unprecedented number of cases, demanded immediate attention, and consumed limited remedies in each of them,” Sotomayor continued.
‘And with every subsequent application, the cries of urgency always sound holder. The behavior with regard to the public rule in particular shows how much the personal definition of irreparable damage has changed, “she wrote.
Trump responded by quoting a report from Laura Ingraham of Fox News and accused Sotomayor of getting others in a Trump-related case to “shame” them.
Sotomayor accuses GOP appointed as Justices of being biased in favor of Trump. “@IngrahamAngle This is something terrible to say. Are you trying to ’embarrass’ some to vote her way? “Trump attacked.
“She never criticized Ginsberg when she called me a” fake. ” Both should revoke themselves about all matters related to Trump or Trump! “he continued Monday in a Twitter message from India.
“Although” elections have consequences, “I only ask for honesty, especially when it comes to decisions by the US Supreme Court!” he said.
Fox News’ Laura Ingraham did a segment on Monday evening in which she discussed last week’s Sotomayor’s dissidence. “It is hard to say what is more worrying: that the government would seem to look for this extraordinary relief, or that the Court would allow it,” Sotomayor wrote
Trump responded to the reports in a Monday tweet duo calling for the refusal of Sotomayor and Ginsburg. He also claimed that Sotomayor was trying to ’embarrass’ her colleagues to vote her way
“I’m just asking for honesty, especially when it comes to decisions by the US Supreme Court!” Trump tweeted Monday
The public attacks on Sotomayor and Ginsburg came immediately after the president said at the start of the press conference that he concluded his trip to India that he would remain “conservative” in his answers so that he would not ruin the purpose of the trip.
“I thought it was a great two days. They were two fantastic days, “Trump praised the trip before heading out to dinner with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
“I’m not going to be controversial at all because I don’t want to blow a single answer during the two days plus two days of travel. A small answer. Little answer – as John will ask me a small, simple question and you’ll blow it out and that’s the end of the journey. They won’t even talk about the trip, “Trump said, probably referring to Fox News” John Roberts.
“So I’ll be very, very conservative in my answers, if you don’t mind,” the president at the top of the press conference swore.
Trump said earlier that “huge progress” was being made in talks with Prime Minister Modi, although no deal was made to end the trade war between the two countries.
Both leaders were radiant in their praise for each other, but under the radiant words lay the grim reality that Modi’s generous welcome to the president did not lead to a deal.
Trump’s anger against Sotomayor was fueled when Ingraham devoted much of her Fox News program to discussing the devastating dissidence of Justice Sonia Sotomayor last week after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump government over its “public prosecutor policy” .
The Supreme Court has lifted an order allowing the administration to continue with plans to deny potential immigrants green cards if they were likely to use public services such as Medicaid, food stamps and vouchers.
Sotomayor destroyed her conservative colleagues and accused them of showing favoritism towards the government by granting her request to lift the order.
Trump’s tweet referred to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s remark in July 2016, when the current president closed the Republican nomination.
Ginsburg said about Trump at the time: “He is a counterfeiter.
“He has no consistency about him. He says what’s in his head right now, “she continued.
“He really has an ego,” the justice said. “How did he get away by not giving up his tax returns?”
“The press seems to be very gentle on him about that,” which turned out to be untrue because several reports about Trump’s tax return flooded outlets in the media.
Trump hit Sotomayor (left) and demanded that she and Ginsburg (right) revoke themselves “on all matters related to Trump”
Ginsburg was also quoted as saying about Trump: “I can’t imagine what this place would be – I can’t imagine what the country would be – with Donald Trump as our president.”
Days later, Ginsburg apologized and called her comments “unwise.”
“Upon closer inspection, my recent comments in response to questions from the press were badly advised and I regret having made them,” Ginsburg said in a statement.
‘Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. I will be more careful in the future. “
Sotomayor made headlines on the weekend when she stubbornly destroyed both the Trump government and its conservative colleagues.
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.
The Trump administration on Friday received the green light from the court to refuse green cards to those who would probably use public benefits such as Medicaid, food vouchers and vouchers
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.
The administration, for its part, has argued that it has requested emergency measures because the lower courts issue broad provisional orders that apply to states not party to the original court case.
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 US taxpayers, protect welfare programs for truly 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.”
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” make potentially deserving claims on 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 from the top left from the 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 brief and furious history of the regulation illustrates for us, the routine issuance of universal orders is clearly unworkable, and is causing 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 posed by the emergence of national orders at a suitable time.”
Two other federal courts have previously lifted national orders imposed by lower courts and blocking the rule.