(My underlining: struck me apart from the topic of the ruling:  fuggeaboudit if you were thinking that the leaders of our judicial branch might set an example of civil discourse and sober reason in these times.They are us.)

By Adam Liptak @ NYTimes.com, Feb. 27

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that people held in immigration detention, sometimes for years, are not entitled to periodic hearings to decide whether they may be released on bail.

The vote was 5 to 3, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority. Justice Stephen G. Breyer summarized his dissent from the bench, a rare move signaling intense disagreement.

The two sides exchanged unusually caustic barbs, mirroring the sharp divisions on immigration policy among lawmakers and members of the public [....]

Immigration is quite simply a very bitter topic, atypically dividing the nation across party lines rather than within them. If only we had a handful of Congresspersons willing to take on the serious task of making new sausage on this front. We were once the leader of the world with the whole "making a new nation" thing. And many nations are struggling with this. There aren't enough of them to care more about making it into the history books over pandering hither and thither to get re-elected?