Sen. Tom Cotton on Sunday pushed back against claims by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote in a dissent last week that Republican-appointed justices were improperly acquiescing to the Trump administration.
Sotomayor dissented in the Supreme court’s 5-4 decision in Wolf v. Cook County, upholding the federal government’s authority to restrict immigration from foreigners who would become financial burdens on taxpayers as “public charges.”
As reported by Fox News, Federal law has long stated 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 determining things like visa extensions.
“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.
“I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decisionmaking process that this Court must strive to protect,” she wrote, adding, “They upend the normal appellate process, putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the party that won a stay.”
But Cotton, an Arkansas Republican and Harvard-educated lawyer, said the justice was “projecting” onto Republican-nominated justices what Democrat-nominated federal judges most often do.
“I’ve read [Sonia Sotomayor’s] dissent, and this is a classic example of the president’s critics and opponents projecting onto him exactly what they and the other critics are doing,” he told Breitbart News Sunday.
“So [Sonia Sotomayor] accused the Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court of taking extraordinary steps to side with the administration and allow them to implement their agenda when, in fact, it is all of these resistance judges appointed by Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter who are issuing these crazy nationwide injunctions without a factual record in front of them that are actually taking unprecedented action,” he said.
“The Supreme Court is simply stepping in and saying they’ve had enough with a single judge who’s probably been shopped at for by left-wing plaintiffs shutting down what it is a basic regulation that should move forward,” Cotton added.
“On the merits of this case, the so-called ‘public charge rule,’ that immigrants should not be allowed into this country if they will become a public charge, they will use welfare or use food stamps or use Medicaid, that is probably the oldest principle of American immigration law.”