Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,741 posts)
Mon May 16, 2022, 08:39 PM May 2022

'Dire Consequences': Justice Gorsuch Sides with Liberals Against Justice Barrett's Majority Opinion

Source: Law & Crime

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled against immigrants seeking judicial review of mistakes and errors made by immigration agencies. In a 5-4 majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that federal courts are categorically barred from considering such issues.

“It is no secret that when processing applications, licenses, and permits the government sometimes makes mistakes,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a passionate dissent. “Often, they are small ones—a misspelled name, a misplaced application. But sometimes a bureaucratic mistake can have life-changing consequences. Our case is such a case.”

Joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Gorsuch castigated the sweeping nature of the majority’s decision and its fealty to the administrative state.

“Today, the Court holds that a federal bureaucracy can make an obvious factual error, one that will result in an individual’s removal from this country, and nothing can be done about it,” the dissent notes. “No court may even hear the case. It is a bold claim promising dire consequences for countless lawful immigrants.”

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/dire-consequences-justice-gorsuch-sides-with-liberals-against-justice-barrett-s-majority-opinion-in-immigration-case/ar-AAXlvWH



57 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
'Dire Consequences': Justice Gorsuch Sides with Liberals Against Justice Barrett's Majority Opinion (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2022 OP
Same as WOPs bucolic_frolic May 2022 #1
It's a " gimmie"....essentially a diversion. FarPoint May 2022 #27
Is that a term you want to use? Javaman May 2022 #28
Relax. W.ith O.ut P.apers as an acronym isn't even close to an insult. littlemissmartypants May 2022 #39
Wrong, that explanation (without papers) has little to nothing backing it Celerity May 2022 #41
tl;dr I've read it before. I believe everyone is missing my point. littlemissmartypants May 2022 #50
I made no value judgements about any poster in this thread, I just posted some Celerity May 2022 #51
And yet, you posted it as a reply to me and not to javaman and bucolic_frolic. littlemissmartypants May 2022 #52
yours (the 'with out papers' claim) as I showed in great detail Celerity May 2022 #53
My claim is that bucolic_frolic is using an acronym for with out papers. littlemissmartypants May 2022 #54
I simply replied that the 'without papers' (which you claimed it meant) explanation was incorrect. Celerity May 2022 #55
I don't understand you. littlemissmartypants May 2022 #56
Sorry, I thought I have been clear throughout this. Celerity May 2022 #57
you are now blocked. Javaman May 2022 #42
I'm pretty sure bucolic_frolic is using an acronym for with out papers and not littlemissmartypants May 2022 #49
WOP is a slur against Italian-Americans XanaDUer2 May 2022 #46
Gorsuch instead of Roberts? Odd. oldsoftie May 2022 #2
It was his turn to pretend to be not-corrupt FoxNewsSucks May 2022 #6
✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ n/t msfiddlestix May 2022 #7
YEP! Rebl2 May 2022 #10
This. marmar May 2022 #12
Exactly DoBotherMe May 2022 #14
+1 dalton99a May 2022 #31
Indeed. Self-serving, meaningless and distracting. dchill May 2022 #32
Agree! mountain grammy May 2022 #34
Exactly! ++++++++ KPN May 2022 #43
K&R Solly Mack May 2022 #3
USED to be. elleng May 2022 #4
I'm so sorry. I'm sorry for us all but I know for you how much that loss means in terms Solly Mack May 2022 #9
I had a similar conversation with my kiddo. MontanaMama May 2022 #29
Sadly, none, and elleng May 2022 #30
USSC check/balance is that it's nominated by the president who's installed by the electoral college. jaxexpat May 2022 #47
The majority found that ThoughtCriminal May 2022 #5
THIS WestMichRad May 2022 #45
Uh oh. Independent thought. The cult doesn't like that. Initech May 2022 #8
What a shame Historic NY May 2022 #11
Head fake left... but go R when the numbers count. mpcamb May 2022 #13
She's been on the court for five minutes. Haggis 4 Breakfast May 2022 #15
All Justices are assigned opinions to write. former9thward May 2022 #33
That just doesn't make any sense. Haggis 4 Breakfast May 2022 #35
They have brilliant law clerks from the nation's top law schools do most of the work. SunSeeker May 2022 #40
Roberts got to be on the dissenting side last time, now it's Gorsuchs' turn. patphil May 2022 #16
Neil can shove his "passionate defense".. agingdem May 2022 #17
Disgusting RobinA May 2022 #18
The right-wing radicals on the court are gradually establishing fascism dlk May 2022 #19
They're not necassarily installing it but Cheezoholic May 2022 #21
Can we go with deliberately enabling? vanlassie May 2022 #23
Upholding and entrenching it in our legal system... dlk May 2022 #24
What a passive aggressive POS n/t Cheezoholic May 2022 #20
gorsuch is building "not strictly ideological" resume ahead of overturning roe v wade AlexSFCA May 2022 #22
Maybe he has a heart, small or otherwise. Martin68 May 2022 #25
Will some of the Justice try to distance themselves from the MAGAs who voted to repeal Roe-Wade? Martin68 May 2022 #26
This message was self-deleted by its author JudyM May 2022 #36
Maybe Gorsuch doesn't buy "Replacement Theory" like the majority 5 obviously do. LudwigPastorius May 2022 #37
People With An Ax To Grind DallasNE May 2022 #38
The Nazification of America in action. KPN May 2022 #44
WTF happened to Roberts on this. When it really counts, he is with Repigs! nt Samrob May 2022 #48

bucolic_frolic

(43,044 posts)
1. Same as WOPs
Mon May 16, 2022, 08:43 PM
May 2022

Deported. With Out Papers.

So all a civil servant has to do to keep them all out is to make clerical errors. Lot of devolution of power.

Javaman

(62,500 posts)
28. Is that a term you want to use?
Mon May 16, 2022, 10:44 PM
May 2022

I’m Italian and was called the endless times a kid. As the n-word is offensive to African Americans, WOP is in the same ballpark. Please consider editing your comment

littlemissmartypants

(22,569 posts)
39. Relax. W.ith O.ut P.apers as an acronym isn't even close to an insult.
Tue May 17, 2022, 12:28 AM
May 2022

DU is full to overflowing with such. ICYMI. They're everywhere.

Celerity

(43,107 posts)
41. Wrong, that explanation (without papers) has little to nothing backing it
Tue May 17, 2022, 07:20 AM
May 2022
‘Wop’ Doesn’t Mean What Andrew Cuomo Thinks It Means

The New York governor recently repeated a common, but dubious, explanation for the epithet.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/wop-doesnt-mean-what-andrew-cuomo-thinks-it-means/558659/

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently attracted criticism from immigration advocacy groups for describing himself as “undocumented” during a bill-signing ceremony in Albany. “You want to deport an undocumented person, start with me, because I’m an undocumented person,” he said. What drew less attention was how he explained that provocative conclusion. “I came from poor Italian Americans who came here,” Cuomo said. “You know what they called Italian Americans back in the day? They called them ‘wops.’ You know what ‘wop’ stood for? ‘Without papers.’”

Cuomo’s attempt to express solidarity was a bit overheated, to say the least: He isn’t really undocumented, of course, and as the son of a former governor, he wasn’t exactly marginalized growing up. His historical justification for the parallel is similarly dubious. While his Italian immigrant forebears may indeed have had the epithet wop slung at them, there is no evidence that the word originated as an acronym for “without papers.” This misunderstanding of wop’s origins is fairly common, and it extends far beyond politics. But Cuomo isn’t the only Italian American politician to make rhetorical hay out of the bogus etymology. In February, when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made a marathon floor speech in support of the young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers, she told much the same story about wop:

In my father’s generation and my grandfather’s generation and my great-grandmother’s generation … there was a term. It was called “wop,” and people used that as a derogatory term to Italian Americans. Do you know what “wop” means, Mr. Speaker? “Wop” means “without papers.” … That is what these people were called, “without papers.” And that is all that these kids are, without papers. In every other way, strong participants in our society, in our community, and in our country.


Cuomo and Pelosi aren’t alone in repeating the tale in a political context. As Jonah Goldberg noted in National Review last year, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney, who is descended from Irish immigrants, made the same specious connection between wop and “without papers” in a 60 Minutes appearance.

Where did wop really come from? The best guess from etymologists is that the source is a southern Italian dialectal word, guappo or guappu, meaning “dandy” or “swaggerer.” That, in turn, is likely from the Spanish word guapo meaning “handsome” or “bold,” imported to Sicily when the island was occupied by Spain. Sicilian immigrants to the United States brought the swaggering word with them. It “connoted arrogance, bluster, and maleficence entwined,” wrote the music journalist Nick Tosches in his 2001 book Where Dead Voices Gather, in a historical exploration of the Italian-flavored pop-music genre once known as “wop songs.” Here is how Tosches describes (with some literary embellishment) the way that guappo and its variants became wop on American shores:

It was these Sicilian words that were commonly used to describe the work-bosses who lured their greenhorn paesani into servitude in New York City in the early years of the twentieth century. In New York and other American seaports, the lowly labor of the Italian immigrants’ servitude—the dockside toil and offal-hauling that others shunned—came to be called … guappu work; and eventually the laborer himself, and not the boss, was known as guappu. The peasant immigrants’ tendency to clip the final vowels from standard Italian and Sicilian—as in paesan’ for paesano—rendered guappu as guapp’, which was pronounced, more or less, as wop.


While there’s no hard evidence for the oral transformation of the word, the end result, wop, began making its appearance in written English in the early years of the 20th century. In 2010, on the American Dialect Society mailing list, the word-researcher Douglas Wilson shared examples going back to 1906 in New York City newspapers. Here’s one:

There was a time, not very long ago, when you couldn’t find a Wop—that means an Italian in the latest downtown dialect—in Danny’s resort even by using a microscope. But to-day it’s different. The members of the Five Points gang, all dark skinned sons of Sicily, grew tired of flitting from place to place, with no set rendezvous for their nightly gatherings. A number of the Pointers used to frequent the place, and it wasn’t long before the entire gang became regulars.

– The Sun, Nov. 18, 1906


The story of wop standing for “without papers” is of much more recent vintage. It started showing up in print in the early 1970s, at a time when Italian American identity politics was on the rise. But it likely circulated orally before that. In a 1971 journal article titled “A Study of Ethnic Slurs,” the folklorist Alan Dundes wrote:

One folk etymology for the word “wop,” a common term of disparagement for Americans of Italian descent, is that in the early 1920s many Italians tried to enter the United States illegally. These would-be immigrants were rounded up by U.S. officials and sent back to Italy with documents labelled W.O.P. which supposedly stood for “Without Papers” referring to the papers needed for legal immigration.


Later that year, the “without papers” story also appeared in the sports pages of the Tucson Daily Citizen, in a quote from Cleveland Indians manager Ken Aspromonte:

“If anyone called me a ‘wop’ I was furious and wanted to slug the guy right then and there,” Aspromonte said, “but then one day my grandfather explained the origin of the word. He told me that in the early 1900’s so many Italians were coming into the United States that many of them didn’t bother to get visas. When they’d arrive on Ellis Island and didn’t have papers with them the inspector would holler out, ‘Here’s another one, without papers.’ So somebody took the letters ‘W-O-P’ for ‘without papers’ and that’s how it got started,” Aspromonte said.


Also in 1971, the syndicated columnist Hy Gardner shared yet another folk etymology for wop. “‘Wop’ reverts to the turn of the century when millions of Calabrians and Sicilians came off their ships holding a slip of paper with the name of the foreman they had been assigned to,” Gardner wrote. “U.S. immigration officials rubberstamped the papers ‘W.O.P.’—meaning ‘without passport.’”

Whether the imagined derivation is “without papers” or “without passport,” the wop story should set off alarm bells, because this kind of acronymic explanation is hardly ever historically correct. Acronyms became popular only in the mid-20th century (think radar, scuba, and laser), well after the time that wop and other words with supposed acronymic roots came into the language. Sad to say, cop doesn’t stand for “constable on patrol”; golf isn’t from “gentlemen only, ladies forbidden”; posh doesn’t mean “port out starboard home”; and tip isn’t from “to insure politeness” (or “promptness”). And please don’t believe any of the made-up acronymic expansions for fuck. (“For unlawful carnal knowledge” and “fornication under consent of the king” are the most popular.)

Still, these acronymic accounts often work as a kind of storytelling in the service of what the Yale University linguist Laurence Horn has termed “etymythology.” Lawmakers like Cuomo and Pelosi are not so concerned with the actual origins of wop, because the “without papers” story works so well for their rhetorical purposes. It helps them draw a handy parallel between undocumented immigrants of the past and present, in order to further their political goals. But etymology—like politics—is in reality much messier, subverting such tidy explanations.

littlemissmartypants

(22,569 posts)
50. tl;dr I've read it before. I believe everyone is missing my point.
Tue May 17, 2022, 01:43 PM
May 2022

I don't think bucolic_frolic is slinging an insult at javaman. If that were true I wouldn't be the one being attacked.

It's my belief that this is another case of acronym confusion. And people being obtuse via acronyms is what reduces the content value here frequently. I personally get tired of having to look them up to be able to decipher their meanings in posts.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If you or anyone else, truly believe bucolic_frolic is using a slur, alert on the post and leave me alone. ❤

Celerity

(43,107 posts)
51. I made no value judgements about any poster in this thread, I just posted some
Tue May 17, 2022, 02:46 PM
May 2022

backgrounding to clear up an erroneous claim.

I cannot read intent, malicious or otherwise, into this part of the thread from any party involved.

littlemissmartypants

(22,569 posts)
52. And yet, you posted it as a reply to me and not to javaman and bucolic_frolic.
Tue May 17, 2022, 02:51 PM
May 2022

So who's claim do you claim is erroneous?

Celerity

(43,107 posts)
53. yours (the 'with out papers' claim) as I showed in great detail
Tue May 17, 2022, 02:54 PM
May 2022

If you want to get in accusations of other posters' intentions, then by all means, carry on, but I am not involved in that.

littlemissmartypants

(22,569 posts)
54. My claim is that bucolic_frolic is using an acronym for with out papers.
Tue May 17, 2022, 03:09 PM
May 2022

If you don't have a dog in this fight why reply? Only bucolic_frolic knows what the intention is or isn't. If it is an insult to javaman it seems someone would have alerted on it by now, in particular javaman on his own behalf.

Instead I'm being pilloried and "reoriented" for complaining about acronyms. You can't claim "no involvement" while simultaneously posting a reply to a claim. It's an incongruous argument.

Celerity

(43,107 posts)
55. I simply replied that the 'without papers' (which you claimed it meant) explanation was incorrect.
Tue May 17, 2022, 03:23 PM
May 2022

this what I replied to



I showed that the claim is in error.

Javaman

(62,500 posts)
42. you are now blocked.
Tue May 17, 2022, 08:02 AM
May 2022

until you have been on the end of being denigrated with that insult you have no idea.

littlemissmartypants

(22,569 posts)
49. I'm pretty sure bucolic_frolic is using an acronym for with out papers and not
Tue May 17, 2022, 01:31 PM
May 2022

Trying to insult you. But you do you. ❤

XanaDUer2

(10,497 posts)
46. WOP is a slur against Italian-Americans
Tue May 17, 2022, 11:13 AM
May 2022

When my Italian. -American so was a kid in NY, their landlord slurred them with that all the time. Please reconsider your post.

elleng

(130,732 posts)
4. USED to be.
Mon May 16, 2022, 08:57 PM
May 2022


My daughter asked why they're making such decisions, based on my telling her we can rely on them. I said "I was wrong."

Solly Mack

(90,758 posts)
9. I'm so sorry. I'm sorry for us all but I know for you how much that loss means in terms
Mon May 16, 2022, 09:08 PM
May 2022

of the law and the court, itself, and in terms of what it has meant for you.

MontanaMama

(23,295 posts)
29. I had a similar conversation with my kiddo.
Mon May 16, 2022, 10:47 PM
May 2022

He was asking what the checks and balances were for SCOTUS. I guess there are none.

jaxexpat

(6,799 posts)
47. USSC check/balance is that it's nominated by the president who's installed by the electoral college.
Tue May 17, 2022, 12:29 PM
May 2022

Thus, for the sake of the status quo and Nazi fortunes, we avoid the tyranny of the majority. Voila!


and.....yes, it's

ThoughtCriminal

(14,046 posts)
5. The majority found that
Mon May 16, 2022, 08:57 PM
May 2022

the victims of these errors were unlikely to be white, therefor not eligible for judicial intervention.

Historic NY

(37,449 posts)
11. What a shame
Mon May 16, 2022, 09:12 PM
May 2022

How many of their ancestors would have been barred because of a mistake by some government employee making a mistake. One would think the courts could arbitrate and send it back for review. What a shame. I see documents every day with genealogy that are goofed up. My own family included ,

Haggis 4 Breakfast

(1,453 posts)
15. She's been on the court for five minutes.
Mon May 16, 2022, 09:48 PM
May 2022

How is SHE writing anything ?

Rated as "unqualified" by the ABA, now she's writing opinions ??

former9thward

(31,936 posts)
33. All Justices are assigned opinions to write.
Mon May 16, 2022, 10:54 PM
May 2022

In roughly equal numbers over the term. It doesn't matter how long they have been on the court.

Haggis 4 Breakfast

(1,453 posts)
35. That just doesn't make any sense.
Mon May 16, 2022, 11:17 PM
May 2022

I'm not doubting you, but I thought that the more senior, experienced justices wrote the opinions. So Schlitz Kavanaugh could be writing opinions, too ? Scary.

SunSeeker

(51,512 posts)
40. They have brilliant law clerks from the nation's top law schools do most of the work.
Tue May 17, 2022, 02:43 AM
May 2022

Each justice gets to pick a team of law clerks who are ideologically compatible with his or her views. Some justices are more involved in the final crafting of the opinion so that it reflects their particular writing style, but they all rely on their clerks to some extent.

patphil

(6,150 posts)
16. Roberts got to be on the dissenting side last time, now it's Gorsuchs' turn.
Mon May 16, 2022, 09:51 PM
May 2022

Practicing "safe dissent" in a 5-4 conservative decision.
Makes you look somewhat human, without having to actually do something that matters.

agingdem

(7,805 posts)
17. Neil can shove his "passionate defense"..
Mon May 16, 2022, 10:00 PM
May 2022

the majority had it in the bag..he knew that so his sudden attack of feigned conscience had everything to do with Roe v Wade and public outrage and nothing to do with immigration agency errors...

dlk

(11,512 posts)
19. The right-wing radicals on the court are gradually establishing fascism
Mon May 16, 2022, 10:10 PM
May 2022

Last edited Thu May 19, 2022, 08:47 AM - Edit history (1)

They have no regard for the rights of the individual.

Cheezoholic

(2,006 posts)
21. They're not necassarily installing it but
Mon May 16, 2022, 10:19 PM
May 2022

they sure as hell are spreading the fertilizer to help it grow!

AlexSFCA

(6,137 posts)
22. gorsuch is building "not strictly ideological" resume ahead of overturning roe v wade
Mon May 16, 2022, 10:23 PM
May 2022

he is throwing a bone to rwnjs who will claim the court is legitimate and strictly ideological.

Martin68

(22,765 posts)
26. Will some of the Justice try to distance themselves from the MAGAs who voted to repeal Roe-Wade?
Mon May 16, 2022, 10:30 PM
May 2022

I hope so. Don't doubt that the leak and the public reaction affected many on the court. Not Alito, Thomas, or Barrett, but even Kavanaugh wants to be liked.

Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

LudwigPastorius

(9,104 posts)
37. Maybe Gorsuch doesn't buy "Replacement Theory" like the majority 5 obviously do.
Mon May 16, 2022, 11:30 PM
May 2022

He's still a corporate conservative and a fetus fan, but he's not quite as committed to racist laws as the others are...a low bar indeed.

However, with every decision, it's becoming clearer that this Court would just about rubber stamp whatever a hypothetical president Trump and GOP congress could come up with.

The elections of 2022 and 2024 combined could either be the death of the American experiment, or a little bit of breathing room before the next fascist onslaught.

DallasNE

(7,402 posts)
38. People With An Ax To Grind
Tue May 17, 2022, 12:00 AM
May 2022

Will now sabotage applications as a deliberate means of turning away immigrants and there is no recourse. Where is the due process promised in the Bill of Rights? The Constitution is now dead. Long live the Constitution.

KPN

(15,635 posts)
44. The Nazification of America in action.
Tue May 17, 2022, 08:57 AM
May 2022

Have you ever been to the Holocaust Museum in DC? This is exactly how it started. Well, this and at least the past 6-7 yrs of Trumpism/maga.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»'Dire Consequences': Just...