Chief Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion is appealing because her standpoint concerning Muslims’ discrimination is valid. The primary issue for her expressing her viewpoint is that Trump banned Muslim citizens from such countries as Iran, Iraq, Syria, and a couple of others to enter the United States. However, this ban contradicts all the laws related to immigration of the territory of the U.S. Moreover, it would be detrimental to the state’s politics, economy, and other areas. I completely agree with Chief Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s statement that such a policy is disguised as a national-security concern because there were multiple conflicts on the basis of religion. Trump’s approach may significantly affect Muslim families and individuals across the country and limit their rights granted by the constitution. She also invoked two other court cases that she found similar to this, which proves that most decisions are wrong.
I least agree with Chief Justice Ginsburg as she suggests that States use one formula when mapping elections. According to her, it is vital to “take the total number of people in a state, and then divide up that total by the number of seats in the legislature or local governing bodies” (Denniston 2). Thus, it will dictate how many people will be included in each district. I do not think that the United States should have this system as the Court should make all the decisions. Using the total population metric will help create the election map as it would contradict the traditional rule, “one person, one vote.” The approach suggested by Chief Justice Ginsburg will ruin this constitutional aspect and limit the rest of the residents’ rights across the districts.
Denniston Lyle. “Opinion Analysis: Leaving a Constitutional Ideal Still Undefined.” SCOTUSblog, 2016. Web.