> That is terrible jurisprudence, but at least it’s honest. Sotomayor is overtly stating that she’s made up her mind and will not consider the possibility that maybe the 14th Amendment might mean something other than she already thinks
can you quote that part where she says this or even offers her own opinion? Because the only relevant part
> Every court to consider the Citizenship Order’s merits has found that it is unconstitutional in preliminary rulings
seems like a statement of fact?
(of course, it's also beyond silly to suggest it's bad or even unusual for issued opinions (dissents or otherwise) not to contain, you know, opinions).
> The Government has no incentive to file a petition here either, because the outcome of such an appeal would be preordained. The Government recognizes as much, which is why its emergency applications challenged only the scope of the preliminary injunctions
She’s saying the outcome is already known (ie they would lose) and the government knows they would lose, and the place they would have lost would have been right here (in front of me in the Supreme Court).
can you quote that part where she says this or even offers her own opinion? Because the only relevant part
> Every court to consider the Citizenship Order’s merits has found that it is unconstitutional in preliminary rulings
seems like a statement of fact?
(of course, it's also beyond silly to suggest it's bad or even unusual for issued opinions (dissents or otherwise) not to contain, you know, opinions).