Sonia Sotomayor Exposes the Lie of an 'Apolitical' Supreme Court

[Chris]

Previously I have reported how Justices Barrett and Thomas have denied the court is driven by political agendas but instead by judicial philosophies, i.e., textualism/originalism vs living documentism: ‘Judicial Philosophies Are Not The Same As Political Parties’.

Sotomeyer proves the opposite, that some justices, like her, are driven by political agendas.

Sonia Sotomayor Exposes the Lie of an 'Apolitical' Supreme Court

...And just as all eyes have returned to the Court, observers of all stripes have been presented with a timely reminder as to how the Court's progressives view their jobs: to wit, as unabashed liberal partisans. That reminder has now come courtesy of the current Court's most far-left justice, Sonia Sotomayor. It follows an entire career's worth of similar comments from Justice Sotomayor's former colleague, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

According to reporting from both CNN and The Washington Post, Sotomayor recently offered what can only be interpreted as a substantive public policy position on S.B. 8, Texas' recent pro-life fetal heartbeat law that has garnered much national attention. That Sotomayor would now offer a forthright political opinion on the topic is hardly unexpected: She dissented from the Court's correct recent decision to deny Texas pro-abortion plaintiffs' emergency request to enjoin any enforcement of S.B. 8, lambasting the law at the time as "flagrantly unconstitutional."

Speaking at an American Bar Association event about diversity, the loose-lipped jurisprude allegedly said, according to CNN: "You know, I can't change Texas' law, but you can and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don't like." Perhaps then realizing in real time that she had overstepped, Sotomayor allegedly then tried to half-walk back her comment: "I am pointing out to that when I shouldn't because they tell me I shouldn't. But my point is that there are going to be a lot of things you don't like."

It is difficult, likely impossible, to interpret these comments as anything other than Sotomayor actively encouraging the ABA audience to work to alter or repeal S.B. 8. Under standard canons of judicial ethics and federal law (28 U.S.C. § 455) itself, Sotomayor should now be forced to recuse from future S.B. 8 litigation at the Supreme Court. She almost assuredly will not do so, of course.

...The legal Left's long-standing "realist" approach to jurisprudence and judicial philosophy stands in marked contrast to the legal Right's traditionally more wooden "formalist" approach. That approach can be encapsulated by a quip from the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who once wrote: "Long live formalism. It is what makes a government a government of laws and not of men."...

[RMNIXON]

She is an Activist promoting even more Judicial Activism and has no place on the bench in any court of law let alone SCOTUS.

Instead of asking young people to respect legal principles she encourages them to "go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don't like."

[Cletus]

I actually don't see a problem with that.

There are a couple of things she said that stand out. she said "I can't change Texas law". That says she recognizes the fact that her job is to rule on issues in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and not to "make" law regardless of her personal feelings.

She also said "... but you can and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don't like." That is exactly how our system is supposed to work. Rather that sitting around feeling sorry for yourselves and whining about the law, get out there and change it.

She said it regarding the Texas abortion law, but if she applies that philosophy to all laws and disputes that appear before the Court, it seems to me her head is in the right place. Judges and Justices are human. They are going to have personal opinions on every case that appears before them, but as long as they rule according to the law and not their personal feelings, they are doing the right thing. If it reaches the point where they know their personal feelings are going to influence their judicial decisions, they should recuse themselves.

From what I have seen of Sotomayor on the bench, she has done a pretty good job of that. It is well known that she leans toward the Left politically, but what matters is whether she can keep her personal preferences and her legal judgment separate. I think to date, she has made an effort to do so and has done so as much as it is possible for anyone.

[Chris]

I actually don't see a problem with that.

There are a couple of things she said that stand out. she said "I can't change Texas law". That says she recognizes the fact that her job is to rule on issues in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and not to "make" law regardless of her personal feelings.

She also said "... but you can and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don't like." That is exactly how our system is supposed to work. Rather that sitting around feeling sorry for yourselves and whining about the law, get out there and change it.

She said it regarding the Texas abortion law, but if she applies that philosophy to all laws and disputes that appear before the Court, it seems to me her head is in the right place. Judges and Justices are human. They are going to have personal opinions on every case that appears before them, but as long as they rule according to the law and not their personal feelings, they are doing the right thing. If it reaches the point where they know their personal feelings are going to influence their judicial decisions, they should recuse themselves.

From what I have seen of Sotomayor on the bench, she has done a pretty good job of that. It is well known that she leans toward the Left politically, but what matters is whether she can keep her personal preferences and her legal judgment separate. I think to date, she has made an effort to do so and has done so as much as it is possible for anyone.

Right, she's not advocating judicial activism. But she seems to take a position on the Texas law and how she will vote politically if the case appears before her. She should have to recuse hereself.

[Chris]

She is an Activist promoting even more Judicial Activism and has no place on the bench in any court of law let alone SCOTUS.

Instead of asking young people to respect legal principles she encourages them to "go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don't like."

She does promote political agenda but doesn't, so far as I can see, legislate from the bench, so no judicial activism.

[RMNIXON]

She does promote political agenda but doesn't, so far as I can see, legislate from the bench, so no judicial activism.

Pleading how she can't change the law is also how the system works and not a fault as she seems to characterize it. I may be overreacting, but if an alleged legal scholar can't come up with a better line than "Change laws you don't like" then I have a problem with it.

The law is not about what you don't like and not a popularity contest. Many people don't like Freedom of Speech or Private Property Rights for example.

[MMC]

Right, she's not advocating judicial activism. But she seems to take a position on the Texas law and how she will vote politically if the case appears before her. She should have to recuse hereself.

She has.


Sotomayor Disqualifies Herself from Ruling on Texas ...

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/...
Sotomayor was among the four dissenters who would have stopped the law taking effect, and in a virtual appearance at an American Bar Association summit on diversity, she mentioned the Texas

[Chris]

Pleading how she can't change the law is also how the system works and not a fault as she seems to characterize it. I may be overreacting, but if an alleged legal scholar can't come up with a better line than "Change laws you don't like" then I have a problem with it.

The law is not about what you don't like and not a popularity contest. Many people don't like Freedom of Speech or Private Property Rights for example.

I think she's advocating others to go out and change the law. She seems to recognize she can't.

Still she seems to play her hand before the case reaches her.

[Chris]

She has.


Sotomayor Disqualifies Herself from Ruling on Texas ...

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/...
Sotomayor was among the four dissenters who would have stopped the law taking effect, and in a virtual appearance at an American Bar Association summit on diversity, she mentioned the Texas

Yea, I posted that but it asks if she will and says she should, and I agree. Whether she will remains to be seen.

[carolina73]

I have not seen any separation between Obama's appointees and the Democrat Party. I have seen Conservative appointments vote against the right, but not those on the left.