Democrats mislead about Supreme Court cases to fuel their court packing agenda
This was an obvious ruling, given that the status quo of having one president unilaterally grant TPS for illegal immigrants while allowing lawsuits to hold up revocation of that designation from other presidents was clearly an unsustainable legal tactic designed to serve as backdoor amnesty. Specifically, they refuse to acknowledge the “temporary” part of “temporary protected status.” In his statement, Sen. Democrats are treating this as another generic attack on immigration and blaming the Supreme Court for it because they don’t want to acknowledge that they want this temporary status to be permanent, and they want to demonize the Supreme Court so they can pack it with liberal justices.
- ▪This was an obvious ruling, given that the status quo of having one president unilaterally grant TPS for illegal immigrants while allowing lawsuits to hold up revocation of that designation from other presidents was clearly an unsustainable
- ▪Specifically, they refuse to acknowledge the “temporary” part of “temporary protected status.” In his statement, Sen.
- ▪Democrats are treating this as another generic attack on immigration and blaming the Supreme Court for it because they don’t want to acknowledge that they want this temporary status to be permanent, and they want to demonize the Supreme Cou
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Democrats and their liberal media allies are continuing to do everything they can to destroy the reputation of the Supreme Court, including deliberately misleading their gullible voters and readers about the results and details of multiple cases.The bulk of the outrage was reserved for the court’s 6-3 decision that found that President Donald Trump does indeed have the singular authority to end temporary protected status for people from Syria and Haiti. This was an obvious ruling, given that the status quo of having one president unilaterally grant TPS for illegal immigrants while allowing lawsuits to hold up revocation of that designation from other presidents was clearly an unsustainable legal tactic designed to serve as backdoor amnesty.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Washington Examiner.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Washington Examiner
