Newsline

National Security , Newsline

Justice Sotomayor – Exhibit One, Liberal Intemperance

Posted on Friday, January 14, 2022
|
by AMAC, Robert B. Charles
|
113 Comments
|
Print
Sotomayor

Meantime, the ones who might be questioned closely on “judicial temperament” are those who trip and fail to separate their political and judicial philosophies, you might say judicially “shooting before they think.” Sotomayor is exhibit one.

One of the canards lofted to defeat judicial conservatives facing Senate confirmation is “judicial temperament.” Putting aside the irony, that catch-all allows congressional antagonists to bait a nominee, without specifics. How ironic then, that Justice Sotomayor just proved the point.

Last week, in arguments before the High Court on Biden’s highly questionable mandate on private businesses, in effect forcing employees to undergo involuntary vaccination or frequent testing by threatening OSHA punishment of their employer, the esteemed Justice proved the adage.

The adage that comes to mind is that silence allows people to presume the best of you, while speaking might cause them to question your logic – or “judicial temperament.” As Mark Twain once quipped, “It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid,” or even smart, “…than to open it and remove all doubt.” 

So, what did Justice Sotomayor just do? This justice, while a role model in some ways, has repeatedly shown that her political philosophy – not her judicial one or temperament – governs her thinking, and she often missteps, suggesting questions about other justices should be kept in perspective.

This is a justice who spurred racism questions with her pre-nomination praise for the “wise” Hispanic woman over the “white male,” who has subsequently been one of the most vocal, visceral, unreserved, and some might say intemperate voices to sit on the High Court. Her dissents are often stingingly political.

Donald Trump’s extension of the Obama era policy, with congressional direction, of vetting travelers to the US from high-risk countries, dubbed a travel ban on Muslim countries, spawned a harsh dissent. Said the left-leaning justice, she bluntly – and without basis – tagged him as pushing “anti-Muslim animus.”

That was in 2018, only to be followed by a string of “out there” dissents, including one that compared state laws enforcing capital punishment to being “burned at the stake,” another that dissed the High Court when a state university ban on racial preferences was upheld, lecturing the Chief Justice on racial discrimination. See, e.g., ‘The People’s Justice’: After decade on Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor is most outspoken on bench and off.

Then she wrote a variety of anti-police opinions against GPS tracking, saying police “shoot first and think later,” and added other colorful language. When evaluating states’ rights to assure transparent or accountable elections, she seethed states just aim to purge registration of “minority, low income, disabled, and veteran voters.” The statement was objectively absurd, and she offered no proof or logic.

Then, while absolving or remaining silent on liberal states redistricting plans, she castigated a conservative state for executing a similar redistricting plan, based on a process not unlike others.

In a recent term, she conjured up what can only be described as a fanciful Court conspiracy, saying that the conservative majority was involved in pushing a “shadow docket” that did not adhere to a left-leaning agenda. What did she mean? Apparently, she did not like how oral arguments were scheduled.

Finally, she has run her mouth at times and in places that lead one to wonder, even if a supporter of her political views, whether she is exercising that vaunted “judicial temperament” to which conservatives are supposed to leave.

The latest, however, is embarrassing, the sort of bold misstatement – and from the bench – that leads an observer, of any political stripe, to put his or her head in hands. Last week, in what seems to have been off-script, off-prep, off-road judicial freelancing, she leveled politically tinged accusations.

Favoring more federal control, innately anti-state’s rights, she created a squall of affected hysteria and just let fly. Her words echoed in the courtroom apparently, like an admission against interest.

What she said was that “hospitals … are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators,” and “we have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, many on ventilators.”

Facts are somewhat different, actually entirely different, even referencing the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), taking the best possible interpretation of what was said by the esteemed justice.

While Omicron is highly transmissible, the severity of the virus appears a fraction of past iterations. As major media have reported, “younger people are at far less risk … of severe outcomes,” and the facts uttered are drawn from the ether – nothing supports the bold-faced statement.

Did that stop this liberal, activist justice from carrying on? Did a correction swiftly issue? Was a response to the obvious misstatement – and prejudicial one – of a central, even dispositive fact get made? Is there any sense of embarrassment that a justice is making decisions on faulty, made-up information? Answer:  No.

All this returns us to the opening issue. When people talk blithely of “judicial temperament,” one is well advised to think about who sits on the bench, how they behave, what wing of the court tends to showcase the opposite.

More could be said, but perhaps the best reflection on this topic is that those of conservative temperament tend to speak with deliberation, in effect, from a personal nature that is more temperate – not always, but often. 

Meantime, the ones who might be questioned closely on “judicial temperament” are those who trip and fail to separate their political and judicial philosophies, you might say judicially “shooting before they think.” Sotomayor is exhibit one.

Share this article:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
113 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hal
Hal
2 years ago

Sotomayer is the example of a person who does not fit the purpose of serving as a Constitutional interpreter. Her bias shows that she thinks in terms of what she believes the law means … not really what it means to the legislators that passed it. i.e., She puts her personal bent in to her reasoning, not the interpretation and intent of the law as passed related to Constitutional criteria. SHE IS A SOCIAL LIBERAL WHOSE INTENT IS TO LIBERALIZE TO THE DEGREE POSSIBLE THE CONSITUTION, not just interpret the law as it relates to the matter under consideration.

Enuf Said
Enuf Said
2 years ago

This witch should be named-Sodomy-Admirer!!

Sheldon Beddo
Sheldon Beddo
2 years ago

Her statement about the kids in hospitals also reveals she didn’t understand the issue in front of her. While a pandemic and vaccines were the backdrop, the relevant questions were does the branch of government that did this have the power and authority to do it and through regulatory means, or is that the domain of another branch. In short, it was a separation of powers issue. The backdrop is not relevant, it’s only theater.

Tom
Tom
2 years ago

Exhibit one: a liberal moron.

Philip Hammersley
Philip Hammersley
2 years ago

This is what happens when someone is chosen solely to check off boxes! Obozo needed a Latina and needed a woman so–bingo- we get the “wise Latina” who is IGNORANT! How could she possibly make an intelligent ruling on a case when she doesn’t even know the basic facts of the case?

Zach
Zach
2 years ago

Gross incompetence and political motivations should lead Congress to impeach this justice.

ssoldie
ssoldie
2 years ago

SHE IS A SOCIAL LIBERAL WHOSE INTENT IS TO LIBERALIZE TO THE CONSITUTION,BUT AS SHE WANTS IT, NOT AS THE FRAMERS INTEND IT.

Morbious
Morbious
2 years ago

This cretin was selected solely because the big O knew the R party, led by boner, would crumble and cave. In other words, to fail utterly in vetting her. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that she was pushed along in her career by embedded leftists. The first step towards getting beyond ethnic quotas is to speak out against this idiocy.

DJames
DJames
2 years ago

This is the result of left wing radicals appointed for life. Their evil nature surfaces time and again.
This female is a Conservative hater, A white hater, and a Constitution hater.
What you see is what you get !!

VikkiC
VikkiC
2 years ago

She is more than a social liberal…she is a social liberal activist, which is something we don’t need on the SCOTUS!! Next thing we know she will be trying to rewrite the Constitution! We have enough liberal activists in Congress…time to get rid of them too.

Carolyn
Carolyn
2 years ago

She is an idiot that needs to be removed.

R.J. from Arizona
R.J. from Arizona
2 years ago

Who nominated her? Who confirmed her?
I rest my case.

Sean Richman
Sean Richman
2 years ago

I feel that very few people trust our government,county,state,and federal and now we have proof that the supreme court,at least part of them are in sympathy with”sloppy joeys”liberal,socialist marxist fiasco.I live in north central Illinois so I have felt the”pinch”

Veteran
Veteran
2 years ago

She is a national embarassment, she understands neither facts, nor the U.S. Constitution; doubt she’s even ever read it, and her political bias and activism is so blatant there is no reason, or merit to keeping her on the bench. She needs to be removed for incompetence, bias, and “bad behavior” in the form of inserting blatantly false statements into the judicial process, so blatant that even Walensky from the CDC saw the need to offer public corrections. Her performance was beyond words, and placed an irremovable stain on the SCOTUS

james michalicek
james michalicek
2 years ago

A lofted canard? A flying duck?

Spade David
Spade David
2 years ago

She is the embodiment of all of the reasons to not nominate those with a political agenda to the high court for the following reasons 1) when you have the wrong information within an argument that you should have researched beforehand; 2) when you speak with prejudicial bias during oral arguments. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a grandstand for the left or the right, and Sotomayor is the living proof that the court should not be expanded as the liberal left has demanded.

richard arveaux
richard arveaux
2 years ago

I have no problem with people proving their ignorance, and she as done well in that way.

I think what irritates me more than anything is all these people, Trump, Cruz Piglosi and yes even AMAC, are always asking for a donation. There are millions of seniors, I among them, don’t have enough to support ourselves through the month, why don’t they donate to those of us who can’t afford gas or food or electric? Yeah, a waste of my typing skills. There is no one like that.

PattyRN MA
PattyRN MA
2 years ago

It would seem that we are not fully apparent in numbers. Our voices are not being listened to and the snunami of terror and destruction continues unabated .I no longer see what rope of hope we can hang on to. It is like the Titanic that was unprepared for an stunning for an overwhelming disasters grip. We learn from history. I just finished a book about Ulysses Grant…a truly great man.
He Fought immense dangers . We have suffered a beautiful SNAFUS.I awaiting response from ypur staff; .

Please help. We are terribly bound to your system..

Patricia HEFFERAN

anna hubert
anna hubert
2 years ago

Hispanic woman? Descendant of Spaniards who were racist beyond and above who were slavers and we all know how they treated the native population everywhere they went project 1619 is mum on that the woman is where she is not on her merit Obama put her there she would benefit from keeping her mouth shut

Stephen Russell
Stephen Russell
2 years ago

Fed the same dis/misinformation from Big Tech on virus, vaccines

Caleb
Caleb
2 years ago

To be assured this is the very reason for the party of death wants “court packing”. Note the first form of government on this earth the “Family”. Man n wife with a direction of right and wrong. When I say the party of death, todays “democrats”, there is only situational/convenience to the cause, lawmaking. Litmus test for democrats: Constitution “change or abandon”. Court packing, “must do to push agenda not law”. Lawlessness, good for the party lies as seen in 2020. Abortion, “it is ok to kill babies they can not vote” so they make up a new law. I could go on. Party of death, one agenda only, this judge is just a good example of her illiteracy for the Constitution without a moral compass, truth, or what is right and wrong.

Willy E
Willy E
2 years ago

IMHO: There should be no left or right wings in the Judicial Branch (SCOTUS). They should be completely independent and politically neutral. Their task is to interpret various legal actions to ensure they follow our original Constitution and provide an honest and unbiased legal opinion. However, they all to often have the appearance on not doing this in light and times that the Founders lived, and inject their own political views and opinions into their analyses. At that point they are “legislating from the Bench” and that is NOT their privilege nor prerogative. They should hang their politics and religious views on a peg outside the door to their chamber, but very few of them do.

Our Constitution is the Law of the Land, not the SCOTUS; the Legislative Branch is responsible for making the laws, and the Executive Branch is responsible to enforce their laws. Executive Orders are for emergency situations requiring quicker action than the Legislative Branch can legislate, not for everyday problems just to get around the slowness of our legislative requirements. We have SERIOUS problems in every one of these branches, and the only cure is to ensure our elections are honest and for the voters to be very careful when vetting the candidates for these high offices. We have a Republic IF WE CAN KEEP IT! Me? I vote to keep it; Being a Veteran, I love the USA warts and all, and have taken an Oath of Allegiance to the USA.

“Our Democracy” is “Far Left Extremist Communism” and is not the same as “Democracy” which is the older version that is more “Middle of the Road Left” and you should ensure that you know the difference before you buy into the wrong one and end up with “Buyers Remorse.” Republicanism has its faults as well, as do Libertarians, but they’re not as rabidly extremist. White Supremists exist, as does the KKK and some Churches, but they are a small minorities, unless you listen to the drastically censored Main Stream Media or “Our Democracy” sources. On the Internet, there are many “uncensored” news sources, such as Epoch-TV or RSBN, Doctors Mercola and Malone, and Rumble, among others. Have a nice day.

GKP
GKP
2 years ago

The supreme Court has become a joke and SOTO STINKO is a perfect example of liberals in the court// the liberal justices will vote for the DEMOCRATS every time and appeal to their party and please BIDEN/PELOSI/ and SCHUMER// THE dumb assed conservatives are actually trying not to be political and instead of pleasing their PRESIDENT and Consevatives.. They vote for the liberals and have rulings shoved up their ASS by these losers like SOTO/KEGAN/BREYER/ etc///////

Rick
Rick
2 years ago

I caught some of her questioning during the abortion case. All she did was read talking points from the abortion crowd, ask the witness a question, then start talking again without giving him a chance to answer. Other than Ginsburg, probably the most wasted seat on the Court!

BigEd
BigEd
2 years ago

Her openly expressed biases and interjection of false information into a court proceeding renders her unfit to serve as a Justice on any court, and especially the US Supreme Court. Collectively, her reprehensible conduct provides sufficient cause for removing her from the bench, and precluding her from serving as a justice or magistrate in any court.

Steve
Steve
2 years ago

Funny I have not heard a complete sentence come out of her pie hole . But I treat the left like the left treats the right . Case in point your other article on why no one is held accountable for Afghanistan and no one will and like the Americans in Libya. America get any justice on that one only dead Americans . Thanks Amac on reporting what goes out of her pie hole I am not listening !

B. Schmidt
B. Schmidt
2 years ago

How true, but in this administration, being competent is not a requisite for appointments to such high places. The only ticket to success is that one be a liberal or a Far Leftist. Conservatives need not even apply.

Katie
Katie
2 years ago

When she was recently seen in DC openly dining and socializing with members of the demon, jackal squad, it showed me who was filling her mind with all the misinformation to spew out. She’s just a puppet like Brandon.

artzy
artzy
2 years ago

She is a disgrace and was never a good choice for supreme court judge

Donald
Donald
2 years ago

Hope those who voted for Biden are happy with their vote!
I pray America survives this administration!

Topazinator
Topazinator
2 years ago

Una Latina estupida.

joe
joe
2 years ago

before she was on the supreme court there was a test i think it was for firemen she wanted a new test because no minorities passed the test she took it to the supreme court she lost

Robin Walter Boyd
Robin Walter Boyd
2 years ago

A Justice who does not know the facts cannot be just about their decisions of any issue. No more do I want U.S. laws to be affected by Biblical quotes to decide on the legality of when we consider ending a beating heart in an unborn child, do I want U.S. laws to be affected by politicized data that has no basis in truth to decide how much we should react or overreact to health issues. The very first thing a Supreme Court Justice is to determine is if the subject at hand in any way defies the U.S. Constitution and American citizens rights as they are defined in the Bill of Rights.

Larry W.
Larry W.
2 years ago

We all make mistakes but this seems to be a trend among progressives where you blurt out something to support your agenda without really considering it’s merits. What’s really scary is that accountability for wrong words or bad results seems to be a thing of the past.

don heer
don heer
2 years ago

this women is too stupid to be a Justice

Yankeer@aol.com
2 years ago

OMG!

Does she not understand the difference between personal preference and he long?

She defines buffoon.

Edward
Edward
2 years ago

totalitarians have ALWAYS been intemperate! They are mentally deranged, by nature. Nothing is EVER going to change that.

Patty
Patty
2 years ago

…. And yet, she wields her politically biased rulings like a dull sword from the security of her elevated position of wealth, power AND privilege …. for the rest of her life. THAT is the most unfortunate thing of all.

A Wiseman
A Wiseman
2 years ago

Is she ignorant, a liar, or both?

Kitty
Kitty
2 years ago

Sotomayor as well as Kagan were Obama appointees, presumably they share Obama’s desire to tear down and remake America in their chosen political image (which is not a Constitutional Republic).

Weck
Weck
2 years ago

I have a son-in-law who often makes stupid or false statements. He gets all his info from MSNBC. Give Sotomayor a break; she probably gets her info from MSNBC. Of coarse, she’s ignorant!

Judy Gonzales
Judy Gonzales
2 years ago

AMAC, is there a justifiable reason your members need to get their comments approved over people who are commenting some kind of ad for financial gain, which is probably SPAM?? I would really like to know, thanks.

Judy
Judy
2 years ago

I just spent about 5 minutes trying to post my previous comment. First 3 times was to complete the puzzle, the 4th time my credentials weren’t good enough. The last time I had to retype my name and email address. I think you’ve been hacked AMAC!! I didn’t want my last name to be posted either. I’m removing it to see if that worked we’ll see.

Adonis
Adonis
2 years ago

If this was the “wisest Latina” Obama was able to find, then he didn’t think much of Latinos.

Judy
Judy
2 years ago

Even not knowing someone personally it’s pretty easy to know what side of the isle they prefer to walk on…Jesus said, ‘By their fruits you will know them.’ So I guess from that we can take away that from a persons views and actions, we CAN ‘know’ them. So from what I’ve learned from Sotamoyor is enough to call her an immature and ignorant woman. Only a ‘stupid educated’ person like Obama could get someone like her on the Supreme Court. But are there any ethics rules that Justice’s have to comply with to remain on the bench? I find it difficult to believe that someone who is prejudicial and bias when making legal arguments isn’t impeached from the bench, especially the highest Court in the land! Seems every aspect of our governance is ‘Wimpy!’ How could we let it come to this? You know, when Obama was first running for POTUS, I was very impressed with his demeanor and poise. I bet a lot of people were. That was his ‘ticket in.’ But just before he was elected, he gave a speech and included in that speech was his admission to being PRO-CHOICE. That did it for me! I did not vote for him because of his support for abortion. I realized that just because one claims to be ‘highly educated’ does not mean they are gifted with intelligence. That is how I came up with the term, ‘stupid educated.’
We found out unfortunately how many compromisers decided to vote for him anyway…to our demise. And now we have three Liberal Justices being allowed to remain in their positions on the SCOTUS.
I think our education system died long ago for this country to be where it is now. Just how long has it been since our Bill Of Rights and our Constitution, as well as our true history about this country has been taught in our schools…30, 40, or 50 years now?? Yup, this country gas been on track for dumbing down for an unbelievable amount of time. How did this happen? Man is flawed and refused to acknowledge a while ago where that knowledge comes from. Allowing for our sinful nature to engage more and more over time, giving way to the acceptance of behavior which in God’s eye’s would determine our fate of living with undesirable consequences. For instance, accepting a deviant like Barack Hussein Obama, elected to be a leader of the most powerful nation on earth. The price of that we are learning is almost impossible to bear. I believe everything that’s happening is locked in step with this country choosing to walk away from the One who really made us great! GOD made us great, but is it His plan to make us ‘great again?’ Only He knows that, but that’s why I will continue to pray that He will.
And may God help us all!

BAE
BAE
2 years ago

Justice Sotomayor is just another uninformed fool with too much power over the hard working tax payers. She will probably be on the bench for another 40 years. We the American people have to put up with these privileged people. At least she should stay informed. What a lazy women.
Can we fire her??????????????

PIDL
PIDL
2 years ago

First, I have known some very smart women. I love intelligent women. I love strong women. So this is nothing against women. But, I have noticed that some people, not just women, are promoted that do not have the capability to do those jobs. Then they are put in the job and everyone else is expected to help them do their jobs because they cannot get them done. This is the problem. This judge should be very smart. But it looks like she was chosen for the job because she was a liberal woman. Not because she was not that smart. This makes me question the intelligence of lawyers and judges, now. It has been said that you should always engage the brain before opening your mouth. I hope that is what happened here, she forgot to think. But I doubt it. She should have never been nominated, yet given the Supreme Court job. I guess this is really showing how the Elites get who they want appointed to the Supreme court. They are most likely the ones who come up with the list of nominees for the Supreme Court.

Stephan
Stephan
2 years ago

At her confirmation hearings there were questions about her less than stellar grades in law school and the fact that her rulings on the appellate court were frequently overturned.
We deserve better. She’s a political appointee meant to appease a section of society. Instead, she shames us all.

Rik
Rik
2 years ago

STUPID IS . . . STUPID DOES!!!

Tommy Molnar
Tommy Molnar
2 years ago

I have to say, I have lost all confidence in the Supreme Court. This lady, with her absolutely stupid, uninformed remarks about 100,000 kids being in hospitals told me she must watch CNN non-stop to get her worldview. Two other ‘justices’ showed their total ignorance regarding what’s going on in our country as well. Frankly, I think the “man on the street” has more common sense.

Silhouette of the President of the United States of America Donald Trump while attending a conference
1960s and 2020s; history repeats itself
Helena, Montana / November 3, 2020: Woman election official directing voter where to park and vote, man in vehicle holding ballot, voting from car outside polling station, poll worker
Red - amac action update

Stay informed! Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter.

"*" indicates required fields

113
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x

Subscribe to AMAC Daily News and Games