Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Accuses Conservative Justices of Bias Favoring Trump Administration

Ummm...

Isn't the purpose of the Supreme Court to interpret and uphold the Constitution?

Yes.

And it turns out that's exactly what the conservative justices on the High Court did!

Fox News has details on the ruling and Sotomayor's angry response:

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a scathing rebuke of the court's decision to allow the Trump administration to enforce its "public charge" rule in the state of Illinois, limiting which non-citizens can obtain visas to enter the U.S.

Sotomayor's problems with the conservative majority's ruling went far beyond this case, claiming that it was symptomatic of the court's habit of siding with the government when they seek emergency stays of rulings against them.

"It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it," Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

This particular case, Wolf v. Cook County, deals with the Trump administration's expansion of situations where the government can deny visas to non-citizens looking to enter the U.S. Federal law already says that officials can take into account whether an applicant is likely to become a "public charge," which government guidance has said refers to someone "primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.” In the past, non-cash benefits such as forms of Medicaid and certain housing assistance did not count, but the Department of Homeland Security issued its new public charge rule in 2019 which did include these benefits.

The new rule had previously been blocked with a nationwide injunction that the Supreme Court stayed in a separate case, so the injunction in the Cook County case only affected the state of Illinois.

That narrow scope, plus the fact that the 7th Circuit is scheduled to review the Illinois injunction in the coming week, led Sotomayor to believe that the government was not at risk of suffering significant harm that warranted the Supreme Court putting the injunction on hold.

Despite the fact that the ruling follows federal immigration law, Sotomayor's comments are going viral among liberal circles.

Sotomayor is a politician in a robe.

In 2016, Heritage wrote a stinging rebuke of Obama's judicial confirmations, including Justice Sotomayor.

Heritage has evidence that liberal ideology drives Sotomayors decisions as well as her statements:

Obama’s judicial confirmations include two Supreme Court appointments, one of whom, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has the most liberal voting record of any member of the court, according to a recent analysis by The New York Times — quite an accomplishment. Former Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan almost tied with long-time Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for second place.

Anyone who doubts the progressive ideology that drives Sotomayor should read her dissent in 2016 in Utah v. Strieff, which reads like a Black Lives Matters speech, including a reference to Ferguson, Mo. She claims that “people of color are disproportionate victims” of police misconduct, thereby supporting the false narrative of the Obama administration that our justice system is filled with inherent bias and discriminatory law-enforcement officers.

Sotomayor's stinging opinion seems even more exaggerated when you see the context of the case.

The Blaze reports:

Sotomayor's stinging opinion followed a 5-4 vote down ideological lines in which the high court's conservative justices granted the Trump administration an emergency stay allowing it to continue enforcing its updated "public charge" rule.

Federal immigration law stipulates that immigrants should not receive permanent status if they could become a "public charge," which traditionally meant depending on cash assistance from the government. The Trump administration has updated the definition to include immigrants who might depend on non-cash assistance, such as food stamps.

Note to Justice Sotomayor: the role of a Justice is to interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench!