Marialy Gonzalez LPC

02/15/2026

Clarísimo! C sarcasmo y humor

02/08/2026

https://telemundosanantonio.app.link/O8Xf6Z5kA0b

Incertidumbre y confusión podrían ser parte de un estrés postraumático, dijo la doctora.

01/31/2026

Inteligencias denegadas! 👀😢 pobre Tx…y USA. ☹️

01/25/2026

01/23/2026

Así o más claro? Lo hemos estado atestiguando en las calles….

Justice Sotomayor Warns of Racial Profiling in Supreme Court Immigration Decision
In a powerful dissent, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that a recent Supreme Court decision involving immigration enforcement risks normalizing racial profiling and eroding constitutional protections for millions of people living in the United States.
The decision, which affects how immigration patrols operate in metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, allows expanded authority for enforcement actions that critics argue blur the line between lawful policing and unconstitutional suspicion based on appearance, language, or economic status.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent cuts directly to that concern.
“We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”
Her words highlight a central fear raised by civil rights advocates: that broad enforcement discretion invites stops and detentions based not on individualized suspicion, but on race, accent, or perceived class.
A Constitutional Warning, Not Political Rhetoric
Sotomayor’s dissent is notable not for partisan language, but for its grounding in constitutional principles. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination based on race or ethnicity.
By warning that the ruling could allow enforcement practices that disproportionately target Latino communities, Sotomayor framed the issue as one of civil liberties — not immigration politics.
Her dissent underscores that citizens and non-citizens alike may feel the consequences when enforcement power expands without clear limits.
Why This Matters Beyond Immigration
Although the case centers on immigration patrols, the implications extend further. When the government is permitted to rely on appearance or language as proxies for legal status, the risk of wrongful detention increases — including for U.S. citizens and lawful residents.
This concern mirrors real-world reports from communities across the country where individuals describe being stopped, questioned, or detained despite having legal status, often based solely on how they look or speak.
“I Dissent”
Justice Sotomayor’s closing line — “I dissent” — is more than a procedural statement. It is a warning preserved in the Court’s record, signaling that future generations may look back on this moment as one where constitutional boundaries were tested.
Dissents do not change outcomes immediately, but history shows they often shape future rulings, legislation, and public understanding.
In this case, Sotomayor’s dissent stands as a reminder that immigration enforcement cannot come at the expense of fundamental rights — and that fear of government overreach is not manufactured by the media, but articulated by one of the nation’s highest judicial authorities.

01/23/2026

01/21/2026