No, Sotomayor Should Not Recuse Herself From All Cases Involving The Administration

President Donald Trump has called upon both Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from any cases involving his administration over their past comments. The trigger for this twitter storm is a recent rebuke by Sotomayor of her conservative colleagues where she suggested that they were showing bias in favor the Trump Administration. The statement of Sotomayor, which surprising to many of its directness, is not a basis in my view for such a recusal or disqualification.

The controversy centers on Sotomayor’s dissent in Wolf v. Cook County where the Court lifted an injunction and allowed the Administration to enforce its new “public charge” rule that limits visas for non-citizens entering the country. In her dissent, Sotomayor pointedly wrote “It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.”

Trump blasted the statement on Twitter:

Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump

“Sotomayor accuses GOP appointed Justices of being biased in favor of Trump.” @IngrahamAngle @FoxNews This is a terrible thing to say. Trying to “shame” some into voting her way? She never criticized Justice Ginsberg when she called me a “faker”. Both should recuse themselves..44.6K11:09 PM – Feb 24, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy17.1K people are talking about this

There is no basis for such a demand against Sotomayor due to that dissent.

I have repeatedly criticized Ginsburg for her public statements against Trump and his policies as well as her discussion of cases that could come before her on the Court. Fans of the “Notorious RBG” have simply ignored the flagrantly improper character of these remarks. In my view, these comments would be worthy of sanction in the lower courts and arguably recusal on the Supreme Court might be considered in a few cases. These matters are left to the justices who are notorious for dismissing such concerns. However, even with Ginsburg, a blanket disqualification would not be warranted.

While I have been highly critical of public statements by Ginsburg and other justices, including the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the demand by Trump for a blanket disqualification is ridiculous and unhelpful. There is a real issue to be discussed but it is not such stray lines in dissent. It is the increasing practice of justices to speak publicly and thrill what seems like a type of ideological constituency of what I have called “celebrity justices.” (here and here and here).

183 thoughts on “No, Sotomayor Should Not Recuse Herself From All Cases Involving The Administration”

  1. Since it is close to the General elections of 2020 any seats vacated will in all probability not be filled until after ‘inauguration ‘ if then.

    The requirements do not stipulate a time certain There are two requirements. Nomination by The President and Confirmation by the Senate. How they do each is up to the President followed by The Senate alone. Pelosi and Schiff have to sit this one out.

    The procedure used for confirmation is up the Senate alone as is the time frame. They do not HAVE to interview using the Judicial Committee nor interview at all. They can using the example of four years ago just ignore as a method of rejection and not take a vote.

    The current move is to trim the size of the committee which may well come first.

    Other urban legends that are not true is a requirement of any of the folowing, Age, Gender, Citizenship, Education, approval of any Bar Association or other organization. Nationality. along with time constraints. Any of those may be considered by the Senate Committee or not be considered, And the same with The President’s selection procedure.

    To repeat The only requirements are Nomination by The President and Confirmation by The Senate.

    1. To reinforce one point. There is no time restraint for the Senate nor for the President to nominate or confirm. Given time constraints a good move is to not nominate nor confirm too soon leaving the court at eight not nine. meaning six to two or five to three up at present until their recess and then after they reconvene until after inauguration.

      The Court itself can ask Congress to authorize additions or changes.

      Examples

      An amount stipulated to check potential Constitutional problems prior to Congress acting or the President signing One is the Act of succession which in it’s Present form goes from Prez to VP to Speaker to President Pro Tempore of the Senate and then to a group that received No Votes at all the Cabinet Secretaries.

      A change may be to deny the Circuit Courts the right to place into operation a decision made by one or three or even all members instead of recommending to the Supreme Court prior to implementation. Thus removing their ability to play temporary dictator.

  2. Trump should have not suggested Sotomayor recuse herself, but not an unexpected reaction from him just like the comment was not unexpected from La Pendeja de la Corte.

  3. When Supreme Court justices, or indeed, any judge, make their personal biases known, it leads to concern over whether they can be impartial over cases involving politics.

    This is well founded. So much so, in fact, that it explains why both parties find it vitally important that they get to appoint Supreme Court justifies. If the personal politics of each member of SCOTUS did not affect their judgement, then it would not matter who was in the White House. Neither Democrats nor Republicans would be concerned which party was in power in nominating, and confirming, justices to the Supreme Court.

    But the power to nominate the next few Supreme Court justices is, in fact, critically important to each party. Why is that, if they are each pristine and unbiased? Their personal politics influence their approach to the Constitution, and the bench. No question.

    Perhaps that should change.

  4. Trump Bashing Women Again

    An Unbreakable Pattern

    Yesterday we discussed the Roger Stone case where Trump was bashing the Judge Amy Berman Jackson and Jury Foreperson Tomeka Hart. We were also discussing the shake up at National Intelligence which was sparked when a woman Intelligence Expert, Shelby Phierson, warned a House Committee about Russian efforts to disrupt this years election. The patter never ends, some woman somewhere causes Trump to have a tantrum.

    1. Trump Bashing Women Again

      Your capacity to utter statements which are inane sets a standard that the rest of us can only shoot for in vain.

      1. I would agree you but Seth is frequently challenged by Biden and Pelosi in verbalizing their inability to reason.

        1. This from the resident gay hater.

          You hate Richard Grenell because he is gay

          or maybe because he has a domestic partner and you do not. Even Mike Pence likes Richard and his partner Matt!

          You’re such a liar and hypocrite

          “Grenell was joined at the ceremony by his family and his longtime partner, Matt Lashey, who held the Bible while Pence read the oath of office.”

          https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/386130-pence-swears-in-grenell-as-ambassador-to-germany

  5. It’s always good to keep one of the former opposition around just to remind ourselves why we went to the trouble to reclaim our Constitutional Republic. That’s the argument i use against the destruction of the Statues in the South or in defending the Statues erected such as the one of Lenin at the U Dubya in Seattle Washington.

    1. Michael, you need to adjust your thinking. There’s no “ourselves” or “we” or “our” as applied to Trumpsters trying to generalize their beliefs and support of the worst POTUS ever as being mainstream. Most Americans: 1. Did not vote for him; 2. Have disapproved of him for an historic period of time; 3. Know he’s guilty of the impeachment charges; 4. Want him gone.

      This is more Fox News propaganda–twisting your thinking into believing that the slop it serves represents the beliefs of mainstream America. Polls prove this isn’t true. You don’t speak for “us” or “our” values or “our” government.

      1. Most Left-wing Anarchists: 1. Did not vote for him; 2. Have disapproved of him for an historic period of time; 3. Know he’s guilty of the impeachment charges; 4. Want him gone.

        FTFY

      2. Who are you a roboclone collective at best or troll to to make any comments without backing them up with facts instead unproven statements with unprovable sources or references such as
        ‘ most americans’
        ‘did not vote for him’
        ‘know he’s guilty’

        The silliest is ‘did not vote for him’

        But were you educated it would be stated ‘less than fifty percent of the voting pool voted in the general election but of the number that did register and did vote they elected 55% of the required electors as stipulated by law’ versus 45% for the opponent. in an election which required a clear majority.’

        Followed by in a national poll known as the direct vote useful only for select the college of electors one per Senator and one per Representative the checks and balances system prevented a dictatorship of the more populated States a method that has been contested over 700 times and never got past the Congress much less sent to the States for confirmation.

        Furthermore there was only one cursory effort presented by Senator Feinstein this last election which failed to make it to committee much less out of committee or beyond.

        Thus the valid legal election with valid legal voters voted in the majority against the opponent and for the current President.

        Since then no effort has been made to put forth an amendment from the required number of States nor the usual through Congress route.

        So yes most did not vote for him but more than most did not vote for the opponent in uncontested numbers other than an unproven guesstimate.

        The same objective reasoning applies to the rest of the comment.

        I suggest you go to hillsdale.com which offers a full schedule of history, civics and philosophy courses and charges nothing for the education.

  6. Trump’s comment is political. He puts the spot light on Sotomayor but it is not like she and Ginsberg have not sought that out.

    Sotomayor should write her opinions/dissents and not comment publicallyabout Trump. Rather than ad homimem attacks on those Justices who disagree with her, she should explain why they are wrong and she is right.

    1. Did Sra. Sotomayor write a dissenting opinion on this case? It IS the accepted and dignified way to voice disagreement with the Justices who concurred on a SCOTUS ruling.

      As far as her complaint, it’s too bad Sotomayor and her defenders feel nullification of Federal law by District Court rulings doesn’t constitute an emergency. Restoring the rule of law (as laid down by Congress) or at least resolving the question of its complance with the Constitution are emergencies.

      Otherwise, sufficiently well-funded political extremists could get compliant Federal District judges to nullify every part of the US Code they don’t like. Nothing now prevents a District judge from ruling on his opinion of the merits of the law, defective through it be, and suspending the Rule of Law.

  7. Should she recuse? Absolutely not. No cause for it as far as I can see. She wrote a tough dissent. No problem. (Insert howling pack of Trump mutants waiting to hatchet chuck on that.)

    More interesting to me is the question of celebrity justices that you attached several related articles about — especially in the age of the bloviating blowhard Trump. He’s changed the playing field. Willing to attack justices and jurors while tossing aside subtextual and silently agreed upon social norms. I’m really curious about his effect on the newer justices. Yes, Trump is pure id and says whatever he wants, but he’s named a couple judges who are a bit hamstrung by how they were named as it relates to their possibilities to travel as ‘celeb’ justices. Gorsuch is sitting in a stolen seat and Kavanaugh’s history of problems keeping mr. happy in his pants are common knowledge. It’s not as if those realities are really questioned…, it’s much more that people are either pro or con the material reality of how those justices arrived on the court…

    Ultimately though, I think it serves to turn celebrity justice-ship back a step at least one space on the track. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh can’t go out and spike the football, basically. It’s a fascinating dynamic.

    1. ” (Insert howling pack of Trump mutants waiting to hatchet chuck on that.)”

      Paul, …And you wonder why you have difficulty speaking to some people. Maybe it is your attitude and your reliance on insult rather than fact.

      1. “And you wonder why you have difficulty speaking to some people. Maybe it is your attitude and your reliance on insult rather than fact.” -Allan

        Says the pot.

        1. “difficulty speaking to some people”

          Anonymous the Stupid, in your case it’s not some, it’s universal because you are so Stupid.

          1. “Seems as if Allan is a little humor challenged”

            Paul, neither you nor Anonymous the Stupid have anything to say that is funny. Maybe I should laugh when your dialogue is foolish. I would be in hysterics all the time.

            Would that suit you better?

              1. “Ibid.”

                Paul, is the use of the word ‘ibid’ your way of making people think you are scholarly or is it a punchline?

                  1. Paul, sounds more like your kind of punchline. Be careful not to reach the state of Anonymous the Stupid’s use of ” “

  8. Sotomayor is the least qualified person to sit on the Supreme Court vs other choices they had. She simply should stand above politics and express her views in a better way.

    She doesn’t like the liberal judges being over ruled. These liberal judges who act on their hatred of Trump, impose nationwide bans. Therefore Trump has had to appeal a # cases to the Supreme Court which over rules these out of control judges.

    Elections have consequences Trump or any President should appoint who they want vs checking all the boxes for social reasons

    1. “Sotomayor is the least qualified person to sit on the Supreme Court vs other choices they had. ”

      I so happen to be at a gathering where Sotomayor was the primary speaker. She was a lovely woman who walked around the room inbetween the tables and chairs getting close to everyone. One couldn’t help but like her. She talked about her history and why that history made her a better candidate for the Supreme Court than others. She talked about how she could better understand certain groups of people and how that also made her a better Supreme Court Justice. I always thought it was the knowledge of the Constitution and our laws that was important for a Supreme Court Justice while it was left up to the Legislature to pass laws or even amend the Constitution. I didn’t think she was supposed to use her thinking rather than our Consitution and laws to decide right and wrong for the rest of the country.

      1. Story needs a punch line. I suggest “and it was then i realized the staggering limitations of my reductionism and thought of the SC in an entirely new way going forward from that encounter.”

  9. We have three equal branches of the fed gov. The Congress members yak. The President yaks and twits. The Judicial branch has the right to write opinions and dissents. The critics should shut the ukFay up. Y’all know piglatin don’t ya?
    Because of this crticizeation by Pres and others, the whole Court should call a press conference and sit up on the bench in their pajamas and speak to the world. Sprec Frei.

  10. How they hate us. Let us count the ways…..

    ……..

    “Bloomberg’s apparent dismissal of rural people might seem odd, given that Democrats profess allegiance with the working classes and muscular labor. But, in fact, his disdain is perversely logical and indeed predictable.

    In the earlier 2008 campaign, then-progressive candidate Barack Obama wrote off the rural voters of Pennsylvania, a state he lost in the primaries to Hillary Clinton. Of those who apparently did not vote for him, he claimed: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

    A contrite Obama knew relatively little about rural Pennsylvania other than the stereotypes he had embraced about country life from his Hawaiian prep-school cocoon, Occidental College, the Ivy League, and his subsequent elite, identity-politics cursus honorum.

    His then-opponent Hillary Clinton pounced and attacked Obama as “elitist and out of touch” — and she soon transmogrified, as Obama put it, into “Annie Oakley” Hillary. Remember that, in those few days of her failed first bid to capture the Democratic nomination, Hillary drank boilermakers, talked guns, bowled, and bragged about her solid support among the “white” working classes.

    Of course, eight years later Hillary herself wrote off the base of her 2016 opponent Donald Trump as “a basket of deplorables.” And after smearing them as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — you name it,” she boasted that some of them were “irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.” When candidate Clinton went to impoverished West Virginia, she lectured poor and often out-of-work coal miners, promising, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” This from someone who gave inane 20-minute talks to Wall Street grandees for over $12,000 a minute — on their expectation that she’d be a compliant quid pro quo political investment.

    Former vice president and current presidential candidate Joe Biden said of Trump’s working-class voters, “They’re a small percentage of the American people, virulent people, some of them the dregs of society.”

    Biden, by 2019, had also metamorphosed from good ole Joe Biden of rural and coal-mining Scranton, Pa., to the grandee who could advise doomed coal miners to learn how to program computers: “Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program, for God’s sake!”

    A coal miner might have replied to Joe Biden: “Anybody who cannot do much of anything other than get mired in drugs and illicit affairs can certainly learn how to make $80,000 a month as a consultant to a foreign energy company.”

    The disdain for the working and middle classes shown by wealthy liberals who supposedly champion labor is matched by the disdain of progressive government bureaucrats, media, and left-wing Hollywood celebrities. In one amorous exchange to his paramour Lisa Page, fellow FBI agent and Trump hater Peter Strzok said, “Just went to a Southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support.”

    Victor Davis Hanson
    NR

  11. When she writes, “It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it”, she is not expressing a legal dissent based on a legal analysis of statutory language or the Constitution. She’s expressing a political policy preference.

    She acknowledged during her confirmation hearings her supposed “empathy” was going guide her legal opinions. That was a red flag. Her opinions are not based on blind justice. They are not a dispassionate legal analysis of statutory language or legal precedent. Confirming her was a big mistake.

    She should resign as a Supreme Court Justice and become a full time social justice warrior. I recommend she go all out: tatoo her face and dye her hair blue, too.

    1. Someone who claims being a ‘wise Latina’ makes her superior to other members of the Court should never have been allowed on the bench.

      As for the rest, the judiciary has brought this on themselves. They wanted time in the spotlight; now they have it.

  12. Again, you’re invariably arguing for members of the judiciary to be free of any standards they do not set for themselves. Come the revolution, the Bourbons will be subject to law as well.

      1. You’re laughing because the emotions of the senile are random.

        And the Bourbons will be subject to ordinary labor discipline. No more tenure.

    1. The Revolution started in 1909. We are in a counter revolution at present. Being lead as it happens by ‘off duty’ members of the US Military, former members and retired members in support and following their Oath of Office.

  13. Sotomayor will be important to voting with SCOTUS to clear Assange of any wrong doing, provided he gets a sex change or not

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/25/julian-assange-handcuffed-stripped-naked-claim-lawyers

    “Julian Assange was ‘handcuffed 11 times and stripped naked’ “
    The Australian, who could face a 175-year prison sentence if found guilty, is accused of working with the former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak classified documents.

  14. President Barf said this, President Barf said that.

    He barfs about matters only concerning himself on his quest to install the very Deep State he snowflakingly whines about.

    The routine is boring: cry victim as a victim of bias in order to inject real bias that’s in his own obese image.

    He’s as transparent as the empty space between his bronzed ears.

    1. It doesn’t matter what Sotomayor does, she has already dishonored the court and tainted any decision she make from this point.
      She also shows Roberts to be a simpleton when he asserts that there are “no Obama Justices”.
      “Trump didn’t kill politics. He just pointed to the body lying on the floor.” – Ben Shapiro

      1. The Chief Justice, Roberts, will leave the Court and the rest of the judiciary looking much shabbier than when he arrived.

  15. ‘No, Sotomayor Should Not Recuse Herself From All Cases Involving The Administration’

    No, Sotomayor should resign because she was appointed only because she is Hispanic.

      1. If you count Gorsuch as a Catholic, since he was raised at one and is not Episcopalian, then it’s divided between Jews and Catholics. Funny how America works.

  16. I would be impressed if the wise Latina became a charitable Latina and supported a couple of broke immigrants out of her own salary. Maybe give them a bedroom or two in her own home to live in.

    It is just common sense not to import welfare recipients into the country outside of some impending life or death situation. And even then they should be put to labor as soon as possible.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. In New Mexico, Arizona and California, the Spanish-Americans were there long before the gringos.

      Grow up.

        1. Not correct in New Mexico. About right in California.

          But it remains that the gringos were the late comers.

      1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-three citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-five weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – they had a tenuous hold in Arizona since they only got as far north as Tucson for towns. They were kicked out of New Mexico by the Indians. California was defeated by a very small gringo army.

        1. Yes, the Franciscans made a serious mistake in New Mexico, but the Spaniards later prevailed in New Mexico, with the Indians agreeing to Catholic practices provided they could also continue their traditional practices.

          I lived in northern New Mexico in the 1950s. I’ve experienced the results

        2. Paul C…..and, speaking of gringos in the Southwest, there were 3 times as many white settlers as Mexican nationals in Texas at the time of the Texas Revolution. Also, an interesting story/legend about the word “gringo”.
          “Green Grow the Lilacs” was a favorite folk song the Texas settlers sang quite alot as they worked and played………….hence the Mexicans called them gringos.

          1. Cindy Bragg – here is a different look

            A college classmate asked me, “Where are you from?”

            I gave him the long answer: I was born in Guatemala, but my mother is from Nicaragua, and I have lived in the U.S. my whole life.

            “So, you’re Guatemalan,” he said. No, I’m not.

            I may have been born in Guatemala, but I was raised in Florida. Regardless of the fact that I have lived in the U.S. since I was 2 years old, most Americans would find it strange to hear my grandma occasionally call me media gringa — a half-gringa.

            I speak Spanish at home, and my last name is Ramirez. My mother is Nicaraguan, and my father is Guatemalan. But my grandmother knows that even though I was born in Guatemala, I am a foreigner in the place of my birth. I have no concrete ties to Guatemala or its culture. I have lived my entire life in the U.S. I am, as grandma says, media gringa.

            Most people think “gringo” is only a derogatory epithet for white Americans, and they incorrectly assume that any use of the word is inherently offensive. That is not the case.

            Gringo can be used to broadly and inoffensively refer to a group of U.S. citizens. I’ve also heard it used as a term for Europeans. I’ve heard the term used as a name for people who don’t speak Spanish. It can also be used to refer to Hispanics who speak very little or no Spanish at all. Gringo is also sometimes used as a name for Hispanics who are not in touch with their Latino roots, or for any person who is ignorant of Latin American culture or history.

            My mother and I call my brother a gringo because he doesn’t eat gallo pinto, the traditional Nicaraguan dish of rice and beans. When he complains about a meal we say, “Ese se cree gringo” (“he thinks he’s a gringo”).

            Beatriz Varela wrote the chapter “Ethnic nicknames of Spanish origin in American English” in the book Spanish Loanwords in the English Language: A Tendency Towards Hegemony Reversal. Varela explains many of the myths surrounding the word, detailing the flaws in the theory that it comes from the words “green” and “go,” with “green” being phonetically spelled as “grin” in Spanish. She also mentions the folklore that Mexicans coined the word in the 1800s. This particular story claims that the word was a reference to “Green Grow the Lilacs,” a song the U.S. military sang while marching.

            My sixth-grade Spanish teacher claimed that the word was coined by Central and South Americans during the U.S. military occupation of various Latin American countries. According to him, the word refers to the color of the U.S. dollar.

            In all three of these stories, the message is the same: Mexicans and Latin Americans came up with word because they wanted the U.S. military to leave: “Green, go home!”

            But the 1786 Castilian Dictionary by Esteban Terreros y Pando traces the use of the word back to 1700s Spain. Spaniards used it as a name for people who could not speak Spanish, he said, or who spoke Spanish with a heavy accent.

            Joan Corominas, an etymologist of Spanish and Catalan, gives us another theory behind the origins of the word. Corominas believes it may have evolved from the Spanish word for Greek: griego. “Está hablando griego,” (“he is speaking Greek”), as in the figurative expression, “It’s all Greek to me.” Meanwhile, William Sayers of Cornell University traces gringo to the Andalusian word for pilgrim, peregrino, and the Romani word for foreigner.

            Regardless of the actual origin of gringo, there is a common thread behind all the origin myths and theories. Namely, that it has historically been used to refer to a foreigner. Whether it is a traveler, a person whose language is unintelligible, or a person of foreign birth like me, gringo denotes the idea of otherness.

            Which individuals and groups get labeled gringo will evolve as the demographics of the U.S. continue to change. Maybe one day more people will use gringo in the way my grandma uses it — as a name for Latinos in the U.S. Maybe the next time somebody asks me, “Where are you from?” I will be able to answer, “I am a gringa,” and everybody will understand.

            https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/08/07/209266300/who-exactly-is-a-gringo

              1. P.S. A Brazilian friend told me one time that the orange clay tiles used to make rooftops were invented by the black slaves in Brazile……He said they would place the wet clay on their thighs to make that curved shape……

      2. No, there were mongols (AKA Indians or Natives) whose DNA is classified as Asian who are the first-known inhabitants of the Americas. Then came the Spanish and Portuguese explorers, creating a mixed-race (Eurasian) known as Hispanic. The only allegations I know of concerning “slavery” occurred in some of the 13 California missions where Indians were brought to be civilized; i.e., taught Christianity, how to use eating utensils, and so on. There were claims that the work they performed at the missions constituted slavery, although the Jesuits and Franciscans might counter that they worked for room and board. In any case, it seems hard to believe that they couldn’t have run off if it were all that bad. But the missions only extended from San Diego to the Bay Area. California north of San Fran was under Russian control. They also employed Indian laborers, but had no interest in converting them or civilizing them. They paid them in trinkets as day-laborers and they could work or not work as they pleased. None of this has anything to do with Sotomayor, who is Puerto Rican. Her mother was a nurse and father worked in the garment industry in NY. She went to Catholic schools. Basically a lower-middle class upbringing that wouldn’t entitle her to anything if she were white. She benefitted from affirmative action to get in elite colleges, but somehow thinks that was her entitlement and resents the country that provided her such generous opportunities. Her opinions are mediocre and she doesn’t bring much to the court. I’ll be glad when she is gone. If they want a “Hispanic seat” on the Court, they could do so much better. Ted Cruz comes to mind….

      3. David, using the term”gringos,” might seem humorous to you, but to me it is as racist as calling hispanics wetbacks, or the N-word to describe black people. Please refrain from using such terms. It is not ok to use such terms, just because it applies to whites who are now the target of the left.

      4. You may not be aware of this David, but they are now all part of the United States.
        They have been for a long time.

  17. She oughta recuse herself from every case. She’s an affirmative action hire posited on the high bench for her politically desirable immutable personal characteristics not her legal acumen. Her prior judicial performance was pedestrian at best, but as the HR people like to say, she “killed two birds with one stone.”

    1. Mespo, I think you have Clarence Thomas in mind.

      As for Soyomayor, I guess that affirmative action thing got her a Princeton summa cum laude degree and editorship of the Yale Law Review. More importantly, she’s the only SC judge who had a real career as a lawyer – DA office and private practice – before becoming a judge.Growing up in the Bronx, she didn’t have the mean streets of Bethesda experience of Kavanaugh, but somehow has a more realistic view of America than the prep and graduate school trained court majorit, and unlike Thomas has the brains and facility to argue for reality.

      1. No, it just got her on the SCOTUS. She had the Ivy pedigree and is bright. She’s just pedestrian in her opinions and was only selected by Obama because she fit his activist punch list. She’s hardly distinguished herself on the court (like Thomas) and rarely makes any legal news unless she’s griping about Trump or his decisons. She’s now alienated herself from the dominant conservative wing of the Court and is headed for the legal wilderness when Trump appoints a replacement for Granny Ginsburg.

        1. I’m not a fan of SS, but I do credit her for honestly admitting in her speeches and writings that she benefitted from affirmative action in educational and employment opportunities. And she acknowledges that in some instances she was able to work hard and succeed, and in other instances she didn’t make the grade. Unlike the Obamas, who refuse to acknowledge that they greatly benefitted from racial preferences.

        2. So then Mespo, it’s not affirmative action but ideology?

          Why don’t you make up your mind and then get back to us.

      2. She wasn’t THE editor of the Yale Law Review, she was AN editor. Law reviews have a host of editors, so nearly everybody who wants an editorship can get one. But some editorships are more important than others. Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, and down the list from there. I was near the bottom of the rank, Research Editor, lol. But you’re elected by your peers for a host of reasons, primarily if you’re willing to do the work and not just pad your resume, and if you’re someone who gets along well with the other members, because you have to work together to produce the publication. So it’s not only about academic merit. And especially at the uber liberal Ivy League law schools, the students are acutely aware of inclusiveness, so having minority representation on the L.R. would be essential.

      3. As someone who grew up in the Bronx, is an attorney who worked as a Prosecutor and in private practice, as well as experience as a Judge, that didn’t make anyone ask to appoint me as a Supreme Court Justice. There are many attorneys who had at least as much to offer, but didn’t have he missing ingredient…I’ll leave it up to others to presume what that ingredient was.

  18. She’s not the first Justice to complain about the SCOTUS favoring the government. Problem is, such complaints are apparently selective, based on the political concerns of the moment.

    And the media are just terrible about things like this. The real story to be told here is how the SCOTUS favors the government all the time, and heavily. It’s an open secret among SCOTUS practitioners but the public is completely misinformed about it.

    https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2020/02/24/scotus-dust-up/

    https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/the-government-wins/

      1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-three citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-five weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – still waiting on those 43 citations, David.

          1. True. You don’t owe him anything and his insistence on it has gotten tiresome. This blog isn’t a play pen and he should show more respect for the host.

            1. “This blog isn’t a play pen and he should show more respect for the host.”

              Translation: we batsh!t crazy trolls run this place and we resent others getting in our way of spamming JT’s blog

          2. Watch out or Paul with a counter cite from whatever crackpot You Tube channel he gets his news from.

            Well actually he wont. He never cites anything but somehow thinks it’s clever if he demands them, even for common knowledge facts – like Barr approving of Stone’s conviction – every one who can read knows..

                1. Paul has admitted here before that he gets his news from You Tube and Facebook, later claiming not Facebook. I have no idea which crackpot channel he prefers, though his consistent lack of knowledge about current events indicate he must not be very discriminate.

Leave a Reply