Supreme Court Hearings, the Criminality of Donald Trump & Ongoing Reparations

Tonight we will be discussing the crucial time factor of nominating a supreme court justice and coping with constant fluctuations regarding the Trump and Biden campaigns.  Many are questioning Trump's clean bill of health.  Enclosed is one decision Amy Coney Barrett ruled on regarding immigration. 

In June 2020 Barrett wrote a 40-page dissent when the majority upheld a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's controversial "public charge rule" which heightened the standard for obtaining a green card. In her dissent, she argued that any noncitizens who dis-enrolled from government benefits may have been confused on application but were not entitled; the vast majority of the people subject to the rule are not eligible for government benefits in the first place. Barrett departed from her colleagues, who held that DHS's interpretation of that provision was unreasonable under Chevron Step II. Barrett would have held that the new rule fell within the broad scope of discretion under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The public charge issue is the subject of a circuit split. In May 2019, the court rejected a Yemeni citizen and her U.S. citizen husband's challenge to a consular officer's decision to twice deny her visa application under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The U.S. citizen argued that this had deprived him of a constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse. In a 2-1 majority opinion authored by Barrett, the court held that the plaintiff's claim was properly dismissed under the doctrine of consular non-reviewability. Barrett declined to address whether the husband had been denied a constitutional right to have his wife there because the consular officer's decision to deny the visa application was legitimate. The consular officer's decision seemed to be legitimate under a former Supreme Court precendent.