On this day 45 years ago, it was 1974. Let’s Get More Smarter. If you think we missed something important, please include the link in the comments below (here’s a good example). If you are more of an audio/visual learner, check out The Get More Smarter Show or The Get More Smarter Podcast. And don’t forget to find us Facebook and Twitter.
► Immigration advocates are facing a setback after a big Supreme Court decision late Wednesday. As the New York Times reports:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to bar most Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States, while the legal fight plays out in the courts.
The Supreme Court, in a brief, unsigned order, said the administration may enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States without being denied asylum in that country.
The court’s order was a major victory for the administration, allowing it to enforce a policy that will achieve one of its central goals: effectively barring most migration across the nation’s southwestern border by Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans and others. Mexican migrants, who need not travel through another country to reach the United States, are not affected by the new policy.
It was the second time in recent months that the Supreme Court has allowed a major Trump administration immigration initiative to go forward. In July, the court allowed the administration to begin using $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for the construction of a barrier along the Mexican border. Last year, the court upheld President Trump’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is livid with her colleagues’ decision, however. As the Washington Post explains:
No vote was recorded in the Supreme Court’s order, which is standard on a matter like this, but Sotomayor wrote an uncharacteristically blistering five-page dissent. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cosigned.
“The rule here may be, as the District Court concluded, in significant tension with the asylum statute,” Sotomayor said. “It may also be arbitrary and capricious for failing to engage with the record evidence contradicting its conclusions. It is especially concerning, moreover, that the rule the Government promulgated topples decades of settled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere.”…
…The bulk of Sotomayor’s critique relates to process. She argues, essentially, that it’s in poor form for the Trump administration to immediately come running to the Supreme Court, with two Trump appointees and five of the nine justices appointed by Republicans, every time a lower court puts on hold a policy while legal challenges are being heard. She would prefer to let the process play out the way it has in the past.
► On orders from the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency is scaling back clean water standards to where they were in 1986. From the Washington Post:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Rep. Joe Neguse Still The Hardest Working Dem In D.C.
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Rep. Joe Neguse Still The Hardest Working Dem In D.C.
BY: Thorntonite
IN: Rep. Joe Neguse Still The Hardest Working Dem In D.C.
BY: kwtree
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Colorado Republicans Have Fully Ceded the “Pro Family” Moniker
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: itlduso
IN: Bennet, Hick Hard “NO” On Republican Spending Resolution
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Comments