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.
The Judicial Branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court and in alliance with the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, Democrats, RINOs, AINOs), is in full rebellion.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 9
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
GOOD BEHAVIOUR AND IMPEACHMENT
______________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,….
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors
Anon–
As you note there seems to be a difference between, on the one hand, holding office so long as the individual judge or justice maintains ‘good behavior’ and, on the other hand, impeachment of other high officers for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The simple fact that the Constitution makes the distinction between judges/good behavior and impeachment for all civil officers[not judicial]/high crimes strongly implies that judicial appointees may be removed by some procedures less daunting than impeachment.
I know this thought is being explored by some members of Congress. One way or another the judicial insurrections must end or the country will be unable to function.
Too bad Roberts isn’t as clear and decisive as DOGE’s “Big Balz” but then you have to have some to be that good.
The de facto “Juristocracy” is antithetical and unconstitutional and must be comprehensively, forcefully, and definitively remedied, not simply per Lincoln’s rationale, to “Save the Union,” but to literally “Save the Nation” of the American Founders!
The illicit and rogue “Juristocracy” possesses no executive power to exercise, and yet it does.
Jonathan: Desperate times call for desperate measures. And we are definitely living in desperate times. So it’s nice to see Justice Sotomayor speaking out in “solidarity” with lawyers willing to stand up to the DJT’s direct attacks on our Democracy and the rule of law.
Never before has any President, either Republican or Democratic, EVER issued an EO attacking and sanctioning law firms by name simply because they represent clients with causes the regime doesn’t like. But that is exactly the EO DJT signed. Some big law firms caved to DJT extortion demands. But others, like Perkins Coie, fought back and field lawsuits against the EO.
A week ago the Perkins Coie case came before Judge Beryl Howell in DC. In a scathing summary judgment for the firm Howell ruled DJT’s EO was unconstitutional as a violation of free speech, due process and the right of clients to select lawyers of their own choosing without fear or retribution. In her decision Judge Howell said, in part: “Using the power of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies is an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with ‘tolerance, not coercion'”.
No doubt Justice Sotomayor had Judge Howell’s decision in mind when she spoke before the ABA this week. At a time when the DJT regime is attempting to impose a on-man dictatorship it is important that lawyers, judges and, yes, Justices of the Supreme Court stand up for the rule of law. Because right now that’s all we have. Too bad, that as a lawyer and law professor, you don’t see that as an imperative.
It’s not “on-man dictatorship”; it’s the constitutionally exclusive exercise of executive power.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Another communist democrat sycophant squeeks out the communist vitriolic justification.
More sighs, tut-tuts, furrowed brow. “Injudicious”. Wow what a haymaker.
Will we ever know who leaked the anticipated Supreme Court decision to over turn Roe V Wade?
apbd
He full name is now Lateshia James Sodamoron.
Lateshia James Sodamoron indeed!
Prisoner Number # 00000666
One of the Dangerous Lee Sisters; first name’s Ug.
When I read Sotomayor’s comments, I’m reminded of how the Left these days is so hypersensitive and yet utterly insensitive at the same time. They inflate policy differences into crimes against humanity while justifying real crimes against anyone who opposes them on the least, little thing. They’ll even rationalize gross corruption and deviancy in the name of politics. It’s like trying to reason with a deranged adolescent.
I don’t know what we’re going to do with these people; there’s so many of them. They’ll permanently wreck the Country given half a chance.
Maybe it’s already wrecked, and I just don’t know it. $37 trillion and counting 🙁
Diogenes–
Good comment. To summarize, they act like Bolsheviks.
Democrats like all communists will burn America to the ground to reign over the ashes.
That’s a good and apt quote.
Turley– “This is not the time to be seen as speaking in “solidarity” with one side.”
Never mind her “to be seen as speaking,”
She shouldn’t be seen as participating in any decision on the Trump administration.
Her cheerleading to lawyers bringing suits against the administration has essentially declared her bias and her desire to prejudge these cases. Her declaration of prejudice should disqualify her entirely.
At times it seems the legal inspiration for “The Wise Latina” is Che Guevara.
DEI in the courts is working as well as it does in air traffic control.
The Chief Eunuch should intervene, but we know he won’t. Some of his public statements cast doubt on his judicial temperament as well as his leadership.
She may be Latina but she is not wise. As I mentioned below ( and it somehow got appended to a different comment) all judges have an obligation to be impartial and to maintain the *appearance* of impartiality. Soromayor gets an F.
Sotomayor is partially impartial; her empathy outweighs her judgment.
I don’t know what it will come to ultimately, but it’s clear that the modern left will never acquiesce, and the modern left are most definitely fascists.
If there are any sane dems with spines remaining, they need to start dismantling the Clinton-Soros-Obama-Pelosi machine themselves. Pieces like this that merely chide but with optimism or benefit of the doubt in reserve are whistling in the dark. These people serve the party and its interests, period.
Those interests are no longer compatible with a free society.
You explain it much better, For me it’s like we just went through a period of the Roaring 20’s with all the ecstasy and fanfare fueled by low interest rates, faux prosperity and a Presidential Admin (Biden) on a auto-pen-pilot spending spree … etc.
Now comes the Sobering Up and cleaning up of After-the-Party’, to which some still think it’s time to keep Partying, and Other vanish to get out of the work that needs to be done, and yet more escape the work and sit of the sidelines throwing monkey wrenches into the clean up works.
Complacency, Ridicule, Sarcasm, etc. etc., are the simplest way to expound and escape. It’s the ‘exit’ (Stage Left) of the LEFT.
Soromayor should now recuse from every politically sensitive case that SCOTUS decides. She has declared that with regard to such cases she cannot be fair and impartial.
…especially recusal for anything to do with Trump proposals. She already signaled how she will decide – before hearing the case.
Sotomayor has already chosen a “side”, which is any side that opposes Trump’s agenda, and restrains or completely block his ability to *BE* the POTUS, to exercise his *CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY* as the duly elected POTUS. Trump is operating under the Constitution from cutting aid to the “aid” to mutilate children, to the deportation of criminal aliens and terrorists. He doesn’t need permission from the far left liberal Democrats, Socialists, Marxists and Communists to secure this nation as the Constitution has designation the POTUS to do. Sotomayor is moving further and further from fair and unbiased Judicial duty, to far left Socialist Activist; which has no place on the Bench at any level! She should recuse herself from these cases voluntarily, or Chief Justice Roberts needs to censure her. Any written dissent by Sotomayor should be kept within the guides of JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY, in appearance, if not in fact. Not a call for uprising as she did with the presidential immunity dissent she wrote. She completely misrepresented that decision and the leftists ran with it. Sotomayor needs to exercise some Judicial Decorum.
Peace talks! Finally! Maybe THIS is the time that all of the Russian soldiers will leave Ukraine because
some words came out of someone’s pie hole. Yeah, like someday Lucy will let Charlie Brown kick that football…
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — S. Sotomayor, 2001
Her recent partisan comments seem to fall into the “than not” bucket.
And a lot of Latino men do NOT subscribe to the “richness of her experience.” She seems to ignore that.
It is not true that it is the lawyer’s job “to stand up for people who can’t do it themselves.” The job of the lawyer is to help everyone navigate the increasingly complicated legal system as efficiently and fairly as possible. Anyone who views him or herself as an advocate for any “:special” group should not become a lawyer.
After reading your article I have only one thing to say — public speeches by Justices that are political, are wrong and need to be curtained. We expect neutrality at best and no one who serves on this high court should go outside their duty of office. We know their decisions will have political overtones because of their perspectives, but this comment you wrote about is disappointing and injurious to the the Supreme Court. Roberts? Does he not lead?!
Sotomayor spends her evenings at a seance channeling Hillary Clinton and once they’re in contact she asks Hillary for the exact technique used when smashing a cellphone with a hammer. Schumer is there exclaiming you go girl. They’re all the same.
Does the indispensable right apply to supreme court justices?
Just because one has a right to do something does not mean they should. Of course it pertains to her. This is why she cheapens herself and her honored position on top of the country’s legal branch of government when she choosen this blatant line of incitement and decision signaling.
It’s going to be karma when her health fails and Trump replaces her.
Judges not only have to be impartial, they have to maintain the appearance of impartiality. Soromayor gets an F.
“Injudicious” is an understatement. Sotomayor’s call to “fight this fight” is garden-variety stupid…., but at least we can assume she knows what a woman is….
Sotomayor has been anything but a “neutral and detached magistrate”. Bias and leftist ideology pervades her every view of the law. An advocate rather than a judge. She disrespects plain language and creates new meanings for words in the Constitution that she doesn’t like.
I wouldn’t be too sure about that
It looks like Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and his little band of New Jersey Democrats have taken Justice Sotomayor’s advice to heart and are “fighting the fight”. Great strategy for rallying the Democratic base for the upcoming midterms Jonathan.
Why is it that certain justices can escape their oath of objectivity and blatantly expose their prejudices? I blame Roberts for not informing these DEI hires that their actions always expose their partisan natures and that it will not be tolerated. My biggest problem is not with 3 less-than-objective justices but with a chief justice who is afraid to do his job.
Agreed, however, comments like hers should lead to demand for recusal in the least