Even 20% of the way to Handmaid’s tale is pretty terrifying.

Yep - escape to Canada while you still can.

Her actions show she’s not a feminist. Feminists have written articles about how she’s not a feminist. One of her former students wrote an article about how she’s an example of how someone can be nice to your face while simultaneously thinking you shouldn’t have rights. This **** isn’t out of no where. These are just facts.

I know you’re trying your best at the “no it’s the children that must be wrong” meme. But It’s not everyone else that wrong, you’re just wrong.

Canadian wages for lawyers, accountants, and bankers are abysmally low for some reason. I rather go to Europe.

This is what I think should happen to SCOTUS

18 year term limits with one justice up for retirement (except in cases of deaths) every two years, on odd numbered years (to put some distance between election and nomination).

Hard code maximum number to 9. Okay with 11 or 13 and make term limits 2x that number, to smooth out the influence any administration could have on the judiciary.

Just codify into law (constitution even) that no nominations/confirmations (with the exception that you can confirm within 60 days of a nomination made on an odd numbered year) shall happen on even numbered years.

You need both House and Senate majorities to confirm judicial appointments.

It's not even that, he's just bored. He's voting Biden in a month but conservatives aren't smart enough for trolling them to be entertaining, so "yaaaaasss ACB #girlpower" posts it is.

There are many, many citations in the article so I'll just post the conclusion:

#girlpower yaaaaassss

So by this logic the politics of Stalin were good for men, because Stalin was a man? That is some absurd logic.

Feminism is a social and political movement, it has recognizeable political ideals (they can vary greatly for sure, but there are clear trends). It has been opposed by men and women alike.

It doesn’t really need any of us to explain it or gatekeep it. Feminism was the prime contributor to the greatest emancipation in Western history - it has no equal. It does fine on its own.

The first case, irrespective of the decision, is it a constitutional right to get a visa? If it's not a right, then the government can pretty much do whatever it wants, right?

Ya, the whole maga thing is mostly just an updated version of earlier similar movements. And catholics were very much a target of their anger. Like it usually seems to go--some of those groups that got here more recently and were **** on have been absorbed and are now some of them are among the loudest about doing it to other people. Though it probably would be kinda entertaining if we could watch a know-nothing square off against a maga guy to see both their heads explode

Don’t think openly admitting you don’t care about qualifications of a nominee and only care about if she would rule how you want to is a good look. That she has appellate experience, strong academic credentials, and respect of her peers should matter, in a vacuum.

That her decisions have been cruel is not necessarily bad, in a vacuum because the law can be rather unkind.

What is problematic is her conception of rights (especially rights of criminals), interpretation of the constitution (especially with regards to checks and balances between different parts of the government), and a willingness to override precedents (an idea that even original framers, being trained English lawyers as they were, likely as a group didn’t intend) are what should disqualify her in my opinion.

Barret’s judicial history is still short and there is a decent chance that her dissents, the ones that’s been talked about a lot especially, were written with extra vigor to make a point (liberal justices do this too when they are in minority), especially in the context of compiling a paper trail for a SCOTUS seat. Still, what she has compiled so far should be very concerning.

It sucks that all I got is wishful thinking that Barret is a closest centrist that was just trying to earn social capital in conservative circles to propel her to SCOTUS.

Great point - maybe all the people with law degrees writing these opinions and dissents and articles about them all failed to consider IHIV's "government can do whatever it wants" clause! I don't think even Barrett went that far, but maybe you're smarter than her and you should be going on SCOTUS.

I guess that's a hard pass on "reading a ****ing book" like I suggested after your last performance here

In almost same fact pattern, SCOTUS ruled 5-4 the government didn’t need to explain, tot the citizen wife, why it denied visa to the applicant husband. The case was Kerry v Din

Their reasoning was basically:
No such right protected by constitution as right to live with spouse in US and therefore litigant (citizen wife) had no due process right to get an explanation. Liberal justices disagreed. (3 of 5 in majority said this)

2 out of 5 in majority said the notice given (basically just application was denied) was sufficient notice and declined to rule whether right to live with spouse in US existed/was protected.

Applicant had no right to a visa or due process because he wasn’t a citizen nor resident. This particular part isn’t really in dispute even by the liberal justices.

I don’t think Barret could have ruled otherwise given the SCOTUS ruling.

Amy Coney Barrett?

It was not a point, it was a legitimate question that you have no answer to, apparently. Seeing Grizy's response, it does seem like I was on the right path, though.

You're not. "There's no constitutional right to a visa ergo the government can do anything it wants" is not even close to how the law works (you know there's a substantial amount of laws in this country detailing things the government can and cannot do beyond what's simply written in the constitution, right?). For example, even in Kerry v. Din, the law has requirements the government must (and, according to Kennedy's opinion, did) follow in handling these types of cases. Only to someone who refuses to read a ****ing book would "not a constitutional right, ergo LOL laws" be a valid explanation for what happened here, jesus h. christ.

It's telling that we got a SMALL GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVE over here being like "**** yeah government, do whatever you want" as long as it coincides with the outcome he likes: an American citizen who can't bring his Yemeni wife to live with him.

You are especially toxic today. Stop imagining what what I like, or dislike. With that said, there is a simple concept known as "standing" one must have to challenge the government:


A person from another country really has no standing to challenge US doctrine, unless there are expressed rights by law that protects them, and I did not think any standing existed for Yemeni citizens in regards how the US processes and decides on who and how someone gets a visa. Standing may not be the correct term, but whatever. You don't violate a right where one does not exist. What law did the government violate? As grizy pointed out answering my question (to which you still haven't answered, or countered grizy's answer), there is no law that says the government has to explain/validate their reasoning. If there is no law against it, they can do whatever the **** they want. That's not really a contentious position, nor is it one I like, or dislike, but rather is how the government functions.

I get it though, you want a judge to create a law. If you were to read a book, you'd learn that's congress's job.

LOL! Hypocrisy and ad hominem all in the same post, it's an HIV special! btw the "Yafai" in Yafai v. Pompeo is an American citizen, try again.

Also I love the implicit and amazingly ignorant assertion here that judicial activism creating new rights is exclusively the domain of the left. Read. A. ****ing. Book.

....

...

I wonder how I was not aware any specific laws, but was aware of how the law operates to essentially peg why it was denied.

Not sure what this post is meant to refute?

I mean, I'm well aware that Barrett's side won this case because 12 of 14 judges on the 7th circuit were Republican appointees. Pointing to articles saying "yes, a conservative view of this case won out, even as multiple conservative judges disagreed with the majority" is not exactly arguing against anything that Robinson or I have said!

I was drawing your attention to the doctrine the appellate was going up against. Visa's are a prerogative of the US government, not a right. I'm really not sure why your butt is hurting so bad right now.

The government cannot defy its own laws even if those laws aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Hope this helps.

The Administrative Procedure Act provides a standard for judicial review of federal actions and has been applied by courts to overturn denials of visas. The same act was used to reverse Trump's revokation of DACA.

While it is true that Barret's case probably could go only one way given the SCOTUS precedent on very similar facts, and while it is true government has a lot of leeway in granting visas, it is not true government can do whatever it wants without any review at all.

That said, after like 30 minutes of research, I am sad to report federal government (Admin really) does have very close to total discretion with regards to visas for non-resident aliens because there are carveouts that limit APA's application to immigration decisions. If we want to change this, we probably need an act of Congress to make it happen. This oddity even has a name... consular absolutism.*

This is why the Kerry v. Din case revolved so much around whether the Citizen Spouse's rights were implicated. I'm not entirely sure Scalia was wrong in saying there is no constitutionally protected right to bring your spouse into US although I am inclined to think he is. When you files applications for visa for relatives, you, as US citizen sponsoring and filling out the forms, have to sign at various places. The forms aren't free either and it's trivially to just throw a few words in and argue the citizen spouse has a property interest in the outcome of the applications for visas for his/her non-resident alien spouse. Kerry&Din is still essentially unsettled on this question. Even Scalia's wording is very narrow and leaves the door wide open for lawyers and lower courts to find a citizenship's property/liberty interest in the outcome of the visa applications of a non-resident alien spouse.

*I didn't even know this was a thing but now that I know it is just another thing on my list of things I thing Congress should change. But then again, I shouldn't be surprised considering the tenor and tortured language of cases surrounding the rights of Guatanamo detainees.

And there's laws governing their issuance, and American citizens (such as those whose spouses apply for visas) are guaranteed equal protection under the law according to the Constitution. Several judges, including 4 on SCOTUS (which declined to issue any binding precedent on this sort of case due to the lack of a 5 vote majority to do so) and 4 on the absurdly conservative 7th circuit, think those laws were not applied fairly or correctly to Yafai's case. It's odd you find this to be so completely clear-cut when people significantly more knowledgeable about the law than you, even some ideologically inclined to be on your side, think you're wrong.

Wow look at this TOXICITY, not sure I can do anything but melt into a puddle of tears for the rest of the day now. I guess I have no choice but to not sleep tonight and instead write a dozen posts responding to myself on an internet forum until the wee hours of the morning (where have we seen that before?)