Another Supreme Court case or maybe just comedy….

[tvc184]

On Thursday the Supreme Court handed down a big decision in the case of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado.

It deals with the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA) that allows people to seek asylum in the US.

More specifically it deals with the definition of the word “in”.

This kind of flashes back to the Bill Clinton deposition about Monica Lewinsky when he famously said when asked about sex with her, it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.

That’s right folks. We had a multi page Supreme Court decision on the definition of the word “IN”. Jumping ahead to give y’all time to think about it, it was a 6 to 3 vote on the definition of the word “in”. Guess which three did not agree with the definition?

On with the show….. The INA said that a person may seek asylum when he “arrives in the United States”. That’s basically the case. Of course it goes on for pages to give other cases to explain the intent of the law, etc., however, the question is, can you apply for a political asylum in the United States when you were not the”in” United States?

The answer was no, but here is the funny part. Justice Alito in authoring the decision to explain what being “in” the US actually means, wrote this:

“The running back does not arrive in the end zone (and six points do not go up on the scoreboard) when he is tackled at the 1-yard line by the defense.
The guest does not arrive in the house when the homeowner locks the door right before the guest tries to open it.
The army does not arrive in the city when the city’s defenders repel the attack outside city limits.
And the letter does not arrive in the mailbox when a dog assaults the carrier a step away from the mailbox.
A person arrives in a destination only when he enters it, and that conclusion does not change because someone or something blocks entry. A person arrives in the United States, then, only when he enters it.”

That’s about as simple and in plain English as you can get. Therr was no need for legalese to explain the situation.

The dissent said that being outside of the US is the same as being in the US. 🤣🤣🤣

🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁

After the drum roll, the question that everyone has been wondering about…… which three justices did not agree that being in the United States meant being in the United States?

Clue: One doesn’t know what a woman is.