Justice Sonia Sotomayor has previously been criticized for making public comments that some viewed as overly political or partisan, including telling law students to organize in favor of abortion rights. This week, the Justice has triggered another controversy in calling for lawyers to “fight this fight,” presumably against the Trump Administration.In comments to a section of the American Bar Association at the Smithsonian Museum of African American History & Culture, Justice Sotomayor made a number of inspiring comments to encourage lawyers to pursue justice despite the odds or challenges: “If you’re not used to fighting, and losing battles, then don’t become a lawyer. Our job is to stand up for people who can’t do it themselves.”
However, her comments then appeared to veer into more partisan territory regarding the current challenges against the Trump Administration. She declared, “Right now, we can’t lose the battles we are facing.”
The “we” left many surprised and concerned that the jurist was rallying the left as a type of constituency. She declared “We need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight. For me, being here with you is an act of solidarity.”
Clearly, such comments are subject to different interpretations. Newspapers like the New York Times made the obvious connection, stating that it was made “against the backdrop of immense stress on lawyers and the legal system from the Trump administration.”
The message was not lost on activists who heralded “Justice Sotomayor’s support for the aggressive pro-democracy movement is so important at this critical time.” Court-sanctioned lawyer and Democratic activist Marc Elias added, “She understands that while we must bring difficult cases and be willing to lose, we must always fight to win. And by lending her voice in ‘solidarity,’ she affirmed that it is ‘our time to stand up and be heard.'”
The comments seemed to be spurring the left to action as she did earlier with law students when she turned to the court decision not to intervene in the Texas abortion case. Sotomayor wrote a heated dissent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson. After criticizing her colleagues for their “stunning” decision, she called on students to politically oppose the law:
“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. 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” and require public action.”
I admittedly hold a more traditional and cloistered view of the public role of justices. I was particularly critical of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ginsburg, who relished appearances before ideologically supportive groups. In my view, other justices like Justice Samuel Alito also crossed this line of judicial decorum and restraint. We have seen more and more public speaking by justices in both books and speeches on contemporary issues. I have called this trend the “rise of the celebrity justice.”
The comments also come after calls from the left for Sotomayor to resign while Joe Biden was still president. I thought such calls were insulting and unfair to the Justice.
I felt that Justice Sotomayor’s comments this week were poignant and motivating. However, calls to “fight this fight” in the current atmosphere were injudicious. The Court is set to hear a number of key cases on the Trump policies, including a key argument next week on the rapidly expanding number of national injunctions imposed by district courts. This is not the time to be seen as speaking in “solidarity” with one side.
As previously stated, here and elsewhere, there is no Democratic agenda and there is no Republican agenda. There is only a constitutional agenda, which in my senior citizen opinion is clearly and concisely stated in the Preamble thereto, with additional references in Article I, Section 8 to justify federal taxation; “…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…” As to Justice Sotomayor and the Texas abortion case, abortion is a both a medical and moral issue, with morality being in the domain of the Church; an “establishment of religion.” I’ve long wondered why some abortion activist hasn’t already brought that to the attention of the SC, along with some other activists bringing the issue of victimless recreational drug use (minimally) before the SC with similar reasoning?
As a career industrial electrician who occasionally had to ‘fine-tune’ an automated machine or ‘system’ to run smoothly, with the US Constitution being a much simpler ‘control system program’ than many I worked with in light to medium US industry for three decades, if the Preamble was properly adhered to instead of being ignored in a failed and failing money, power and war mongering nation-state in chaos, America would have been running peacefully and smoothly on ‘auto-pilot’ for a century or more by now. “Free speech,” yes that’s important, too.
I would have come forth sooner but for the last forty-four years and counting I’ve been battling then previously undiagnosed food allergies aggravated with FDA approved food poisoning, trying to remain at least relatively healthy; a real ‘issue’ that is possibly costing another 6,000 unsuspecting Americans their lives prematurely today, and costing all of us about twice as much nationally for poor healthcare as it should. More details and personal senior lay perspectives on the “About” page of my ad-free video channel (https://odysee.com/@charlesgshaver:d?view=about). Happy Mother’s Day!
I beleive Adam Smith expressed what you are saying pretty well 250 years ago
Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.
Adam Smith
Wisely. CGS
“Preamble…”
The exercise of divining the mandates of the Constitution from the Preamble is always either the mental stumbling of a fool, or a deliberately disingenuous attempt to deceive by a charlatan. In this instance I strongly suspect the latter. The Preamble to the Constitution is an introduction, nothing more, outlining in the most general terms possible what the specific Articles to follow are intended to achieve. It does not, and never did have, any force of law in and of itself, and any nuance that some half-wit (or liar) divines from it is completely without force of law. The “devil is in the details” that follow, as was always the intention.
Anonymous, the Preamble to the US Constitution is not just “a,” “one,” or “some” preamble by an ordinary definition. As I see it, it is as much an integral, inseparable and enforceable part of the Constitution as any other, establishing color, flavor and legal context to all that follows, inexorably connected to the main body of the Constitution with a single, single syllable connecting word: “this.” I’m not saying your interpretation is not what has been the truth for more than two hundred years, just that the failure to properly recognize and apply it in its subtle role is what accounts for so much dispute, division, disorder and rage. Also, as a long-term practitioner of secular mind power methods, I find (intentionally or not) it is embedded with some of the laws of God and/or nature (my preference) which gives it additional relevance.
To deliberately ignore, misinterpret, violate and/or usurp it is to do the same to laws/rules in nature but, ultimately, nature rules. As I also posted recently from the perspective of a career industrial electrician, regardless of common usage (or not), the Preamble is tantamount to the BIOS in a computer system, informing future programming where to start to function. There, too, is the Article I, Section 8 duplication I noted. To identify an example of misinterpretation gone awry, perhaps you can tell me where in the body of the Constitution that obscene American wealth is even ‘allowed’ to coexist with abject poverty?
“As I see it, it is as much an integral, inseparable and enforceable part of the Constitution as any other,”
That (completely erroneous) opinion can and will lead (to a significant extent, has already led) to the unscrupulous and unprincipled, e.g., liberals, as they have for ages, using the mention of “general welfare” to justify anything and everything that they want to inflict on one group of people for the alleged benefit of another group, just incidentally augmenting their power at every turn. If your interpretation was correct, there would have been no reason whatsoever for the framers to do all that additional work specifying the limited powers of the Federal government, and how those powers were apportioned to the three branches. They could have just written the preamble and have been done with it, leaving later generations of depots, um, I mean politicians, to do whatever they damned pleased at any given moment, citing the “general welfare” of the public (of which only they, of course, could accurately assess) as justification. I have little doubt that situation would make you very happy.
Fellow anonymous, did you factor-in the Article 1, Section 8 part of my comments above? We are all paying federal taxes to promote the “general welfare” so why not try to achieve it? Furthermore, rich minority rule of a nation is tantamount to a brain tumor in an individual human being, hoarding the vital elements and depriving the rest of the body of adequate sustenance. And, I’m not espousing total equality, just equal justice (not specified to be only ‘criminal justice’) under law. For details on some of how the rich are still manipulating and suppressing the majority of us for minority benefit visit the “About” page of my ad-free video channel, above.
The value of finality. I think it was Justice Jackson who said “we are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final”. That finality is our bedrock of bringing a dispute to its conclusion. That dependance on finality informs whether a Supreme Court Justice might weaken the sense finality by speaking other than from the bench. There is an irony that one wearing the robe of a Justice who upholds free speech for us all might need to refrain from exercising it, in support of the very finality that makes the Court’s work possible. Maybe sometimes less is more.
The supreme court is NOT final. If you do not like a supreme court decision you can change the law or the constitution – or if that does not work – you can change the government and the courts.
Sure laws can change one way or another after a SC decision. The point Justice Jackson was making was that SC decisions are final and binding with regard to the litigants before them, not because the SC is infallible, but because there is no further avenue of appeal for that case. Even when the SC overturns its own previous precedent or the laws or constitution are changed, the case is still final for the litigants of the earlier case.
DEI hire. What do you expect?
I agree; these justices need to stop making public statements about cases that are before them, or may be topics of future cases on their docket. My additional concern is whether these types of public statements should be considered as acts that could force a recusal from future cases. I don’t know what the bar for recusal is when it is related to simple comments from the past, or whether the bar is much higher. But it appears to me that these types of comments cross the line, to me.
“these justices need to stop making public statements about cases that are before them, or may be topics of future cases on their docket”
I *somewhat* disagree. I do not think that accepting a nomination to the bench curtails one’s free speech right. I am fine with justices making public statements that portray their personal philosophies, whether or not I agree, so long as that justice makes it crystal clear that what he or she is expressing is only personal opinion, that they will rule strictly according to law on any case brought before them, and that they expect judges of inferior courts to do exactly the same. Sotomayor’s speech in the example cited by Turley fails on all counts.
A common problem for the Left these days is that they assume they have the majority of the Country in support of their views, irrespective of the most recent election. As such they seem to feel very assured that they can play with the Constitution and the contract of the people with the government basically to support any view they espouse, no matter how ridiculous or insane it may be. They seem to have totally missed how the walls of their echo chamber are cracking and falling.
The hedge against their insanity was their control of the media. It’s no longer theirs to control. They overplayed their hand with Biden’s rule and totally emasculated the media because of their not so subtle coverup of his dementia and incompetence. DOGE just added more of pulling back the curtain. The screaming of the media , DNC partisans and left wing judges increases in crescendo as the cracked walls tumble. The gender insanity is failing as schools and young ladies refuse to play the interchangeable gender athlete and the immigration game is in Trump’s favor. The corruption is overwhelming.
Mr Roberts has a choice to make. He can either lead and put us back on a truly constitutional republic path or he can abdicate his responsibility and let chaos reign. The ball is in his court, literally. He has a chance to achieve the status of John Marshall. Will he take it. He has the title of Chief Justice and now he needs to live it and lead.
Cute little non-decision decisions will no longer “Facilitate “ justice.
“the Left these days is that they assume they have the majority .. ” No they don’t. Their tactic is slash and burn.
Where do you come up with such nonsense?
“Mr Roberts has a choice to make. He can either lead and put us back on a truly constitutional republic path or he can abdicate his responsibility and let chaos reign. ”
It very much appears to me that Roberts took the wrong fork in that road quite some time ago. I don’t expect him to make any serious effort to get back on the right track, assuming that he even has the self awareness to realize his position, a premise I very much doubt.
Harvard Political Review: “Legislating from the bench” implies a justice system comprised of two types of judges: those who merely interpret law and those with political agendas who create law.” It has never been more clear that our justice system is broken.
Exactly
Let’s try impeachment! She’s asked for it, let’s give it to her,
“Let’s try impeachment”
Please cite where in the Constitution there is provision for impeachment of any Federal officer other than the President. Also, where does it state that justices remain so for life unless they resign. It merely states (apparently of both SCOTUS justices and judges of inferior Federal courts) that they shall “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”. If it comes down to the necessity of replacing a SCOTUS justice to save the Republic (I don’t think we are *quite* there yet, but getting uncomfortably close) I would prefer to see the President declare the justice removed, and see how Congress reacts to that, as it would be uncharted territory, although it seems to me that such a process would not contradict the Constitution, and would be consistent with the appointment process.
I’m not as offended by Associate Justices who voice partisan politics in their public opinion . . . as I am when they reject the Constitution in favor of partisanship in their rulings from the bench.
This pol was hardly “injudicious” when speaking to the ABA – for the benefit of all who would learn of her clearly biased prepared speech rallying those with an anti-Trump agenda. At least she (again) publicly admitted that it is her political/social/economic bias that guides her decisions, not the law. .
SCOTUS needs to man up and deal with the conflict between the district judges and POTUS. They’ve been far too weasely.
And if SCOTUS defers to the districtpricks, Congress needs to reign in the lawfare with legislation.
How about if a district judge wants to stop an executive action they petition their Circuit Court. If the Circuit judges agree they present it to SCOTUS. SCOTUS needs to address national issues with dispatch.
Time to clean up the multiple messes of the past 40 years.
And cut a trillion out of the budget, dipsticks.
“districtpricks”! Wow you really know how to make up dem words.
As constitutionally appointed final arbiters of the constitutionality of issues and actions, Supreme Court justices should ground their decision on the facts presented and one other thing: The Constitution itself. Grounding their decision in politics is morally wrong and a de facto violation of their oath.
At this point, SCOTUS should just be replaced by the political party rule on each case. No need for the wasteful legal steps or lawyers any more. SCOTUS is just a lottery system, solely driven by party, not by law. This will also provide time for Judge Jackson to read up on the biology of the Homo Sapiens species.
Sotomayor is simple a Radical Left Wing Woke DEM who should have never been appointed to the Supreme Court. Totally unqualified. She needs to withdraw/recuse herself from all the Trump cases for her extreme bias. She is a card carrying I hate Trump. She is blinded by her hate and Left Wing Radical Woke Views.
In light of the clear evidence that she has already adjudicated these cases in her mind, why wouldn’t recusal from these cases be appropriate?
Roberts is quick to condemn the President for some statements he makes critical of the Judiciary, but deafeningly silent when those within his charge do the same…
…politicized and publicized. When this country lost its borders aka boundaries all its institutions are at risk of the same. Our long standing institutions like SCOTUS, has lost its borders too and needs to pull back inside their boundaries instead of showing their bias and losing their “supreme” trust in this country to uphold our constitution. It pains me as a long standing citizen of US w/ family that fought for this country, to see it breaking down. God Bless this Administration and the USA!
I thought justice was blindfolded. It appears she is peeking from Justice Sotomayor’s chair.
Lady Justice is not peeking from the Wise Latina’s chair. She’s ripped off the blindfold, thrown the scales on the floor, stomped on them to make sure they’re broken and continues to stab anything to do with the Constitution with her sword.
Justice Sotomayor has joined many Supreme Court decisions, as well as making many public statements with which I’ve disagreed strongly. Like some other Justices, she’s also done some things questionable in regard to potential conflicts of interest.
She has also, though, sometimes made important and valuable points and arguments when a case concerns citizens’ rights against law enforcement efforts. These have often been joined by Justice Gorsuch, whom, numerous disagreements with him, too, notwithstanding, I consider President Trump’s greatest service to the nation thus far.
Credit as well as debit where due.
“Credit as well as debit where due.”
Credit for what, exactly? For ruling according to personal agenda in violation of and defiance to their oaths to the Constitution? If so, what you cite as creditable is exactly where the problem lies.
If she is part of the “we” who need to fight, then shouldn’t she recuse herself in any cases involving “we” since she has an interest in one side prevailing?
Justices are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but when they are the law for everyone, I think they need to stay apolitical and keep those personal opinions to themselves. Justice is supposed to be blind, and it cannot be blind when it has been politicized.
Both comments were spot on. I’m more and more fearful of where we are headed in this country. I believe the Left is too strong and the right may have pushed to many boundaries hoping to right this ship.
I fear the left is pushing this country into a civil war!
Professor Turley, I look to you to be a port in the storm. I do as much research as I can but the law is a complicated subject to master. Far above my pay grade. I have the utmost respect for legal scholars.
I fervently pray my fears are rooted in paranoia but if one follows history we are looking more and more like pre-war Nazi Germany.
CJ Roberts was quite quick to call out President Trump for his perception of inappropriate politicization of the justice system. Will he be as quick to call out one of his fellow justices?
You can bet your boots he won’t. Roberts, like SNL’s never-seen Mr. Lubner from ancient seasons when the show was funny, was apparently born without a spine.
Roberts is a sneaky snake.