"To a lawyer, Sotomayor's dissent conveyed the horror of watching the majority stitch together a constitutional fraud from duct tape and white panic. It concludes with "I dissent." Normal people wouldn't bat an eye, but any dissent that leaves out the customary "respectfully" slaps the lawyerly reader like Will Smith at the Oscars. Within the genteel confines of the Supreme Court, that's a scorching burn. Outside of it, however, it passes without much notice."
"On Colbert's couch, Sotomayor offered more polite disagreement, taking care to remind viewers that technically the majority didn't authorize racial profiling because they included "low-wage employment" along with just vaguely looking Latino and speaking Spanish. Sotomayor noted that she personally didn't think this "adds much to the equation," but she felt obliged to correct Colbert's description of the case as limited to how the person looks and talks."
A Supreme Court decision in Noem v. Perdomo effectively permits racial profiling by allowing enforcement actions tied to vague criteria framed as "low-wage employment" checks. A justice issued a forceful dissent that omitted the customary "respectfully" and characterized the majority's reasoning as a constitutional fraud stitched from duct tape and white panic. During a televised appearance the same justice softened language while emphasizing that the majority included "low-wage employment," though she doubted that addition materially altered the outcome. A comedian bluntly characterized the ruling as racial profiling with extra steps and challenged a concurrence that labeled profiling as "common sense." The ruling has generated public ridicule and sharp criticism.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]