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.
(None Dare Call It) Treason of the Judiciary
By: Frank Miele ~ May 05, 2025
[Full Article Link] realclearwire.com/articles/2025/05/05/none_dare_call_it_treason_of_the_judiciary__152746.html
Excerpt:
“… Benda wrote at the beginning of the age of mass communication, and yet he already saw that “political passions have attained a universality never before known. … Thanks to the progress of communication and, still more, to the group spirit, it is clear that the holders of the same political hatred now form a compact impassioned mass, every individual of which feels himself in touch with the infinite number of others, whereas a century ago such people were comparatively out of touch with each other and hated in a ‘scattered’ way” …
It seems that we are now living out Benda’s worst nightmare — an age of manipulation of the masses by those who think they know better — whether you call them the “deep state,” the “opposition party,” “the national elite,” “the entrenched bureaucracy,” or just “the establishment.”
And for the past 10 years, they have turned their hatred on Donald Trump. Without rhyme or reason, they fight him on every reform and arm themselves with invented scandal and fake news.
Now, in Trump’s second term, we see that the bureaucracy has a close ally in the judiciary – not one judge, but multitudes that aim to preserve the status quo of liberal governance. If that wasn’t clear before April 24, there was no room for doubt after the day was filled with one court ruling after another telling Trump to “stand back and stand by” rather than to exercise his lawful power as president.
Here’s what tumbled out of the judicial branch that day:
– A federal district court judge in California blocked Trump’s executive order that would have denied federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit or forbid cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
– A Washington, D.C., judge blocked the Trump administration from following through on the president’s executive order requiring that voters in federal elections show proof of citizenship when registering.
– A district judge in New Hampshire blocked efforts to defund public schools that utilize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Not to be outdone, judges in Maryland and Washington, D.C., essentially issued the same order, giving added protection to one of the least popular programs ever shoved down the throat of American citizens.
At the time, those were the latest of more than a dozen nationwide injunctions issued by unelected federal judges who appeared more interested in preserving and protecting left-wing shibboleths than the Constitution.
Also in courts across the nation that week were attempts by judges to reject Trump’s authority as commander in chief to ban transgender participation in the military, to deny Trump the right to strip security clearances from law firms that he says put national security interests second to political partisanship, and stop the administration’s efforts to eliminate federal news services such as Voice of America that engage in anti-American propaganda.
Those are all in addition to the several injunctions issued relative to Trump’s promised reform of the immigration system to expedite deportation of illegal immigrants, especially those who have a criminal history or are members of international gangs.
If that seems normal, it isn’t. There were only six nationwide injunctions during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, and only 12 during the Obama presidency. That increased to 14 under President Biden, which was surpassed by President Trump in the first nine weeks of his second term when 15 such injunctions were issued. Of course, Trump should be accustomed to such judicial abuse. In his first term, there were 64 injunctions against his policies, a staggering 92.2% issued by Democrat-appointed judges. Julien Benda would have clearly recognized the “political passions” that had supplanted the disinterested intellectual rigor we once expected of our judges.
Yet because of our habituated respect for the separation of powers, none dare call it ,the treason of the judiciary. …”
The Treason of the Intellectuals (La Trahison Des Clercs)
By: Julien Benda, Roger Kimball
See: Chapter 3 – The “Clerks”—The Great Betrayal
[Link] tinyurl.com/5h4xukvw
None Dare Call It Treason
By: John A. Stormer. Stormer
[Link] tinyurl.com/2c246k6v
Related Reading:
The New Treason of the Intellectuals : Can the University Survive?
By: Thomas Docherty (circa 2018)
[Link] tinyurl.com/3byjkckz
Anon, it’s self interest and not in the interest of the Constitution, law, the general welfare of the nation and is driven by inclinations and circumstances. Laws are to be steadfast and reasoned subject not to personal inclinations nor circumstances. The left is without an understanding of reason and laws are twisted into the unreasonable.
The application of laws are not subject to gender, race, creed, religion or any inclination of self interest nor circumstance. This application seen in the rise of failure to high places by gender, ethnicity, desperation, and more is embodied in the character of Sotomayor. It is the this example that is evidence of the failure of affirmative action aka DEI, CRT and a she sits in a high place and shares the failure and takes the seat of another with merit. Desperation and neediness are confused with merit.
It’s self interest, inclination and curcumstance that have replaced industriousness with ambition. When those without merit sit in high places a collapse is at hand.
The idea of equality meant kings, queens and government by royalty as is still in place in the middle east and in despotic nations. Solidarity with those who would twist the constitution for power and fight for its destruction. There isn’t a core of principles, ethics and morals and falls to self interest. It’s everywhere. It’s pitiful.
^^^ Wikipedia source says Sotomayor said, Perry Mason inspired her to become an attorney at age 10. Nancy Drew also influenced her, she said.
^^^ Sotomayor admits affirmative action was the leg up . The truth is if all were equal economically and the rent leg ups it’d all shake out the same. In peace the most intelligent would rise as cream and the rest of us would shake out in the middle as plain and average. It is the despots that seek war and violence then to achieve power because the cannot have the cream otherwise.
In the despotic nations the intelligent are murdered first. In such cases a physicist might do well as a humble gardener saving his true interest for a secret place. This is tyranny and oppression.
Justice Sotomayor had one of the roughest childhoods possible. It’s only a blip in time. It seems her argument is with the economic system. She might have chosen banking instead or antitrust law.
A life-long type 1 diabetic wishing her good healthcare and affordable utilities.
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.”
“Our educational institutions have become a feeding grounds for Marxists”
-Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT)
Sotomayor proves the black Congressman’s point all too well.
#. OT Estovir. Tell me your account of the excommunication of the orthodox by Pope Leo IX, 1054.
Do you think it a curse upon the souls of the orthodox for 1000 years and their progeny?
^^pardon, not pope Leo but the bishop of Rome…
Did Peter excommunicate the apostles?
OT
censored so trying again, Estovir, , explain the schism 1054, the Bishop of Rome, pope Leo IX, excommunicated the orthodox for not agreeing to his Supreme authority.
For 1000 years now the orthodox have suffered this curse. What has been done about it?
Thank you
OT, turns out the ICC was pursuing arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, solely as a means of distracting from rape allegations against chief prosecutor Karmin Khan. His line was that if we gin up enough support for such criminal charges, the rape victim would have to stay silent so as not to upset that process and thereby disappoint Palestinians.
This whole thing is about as corrupt and disgusting as it is possible to be. The ICC has zero credibility and should be disbanded. It is a tool of evil.
Yes, it is.
Could someone check with John Roberts whether accepting a $400 million plane for your personal use is a core executive power that congress may not constitutionally regulate, or merely an action for which the president is presumptively immune from any accountability?
Apparently Pam Blondie has issued an official DOJ opinion that there is nothing wrong with accepting the 747 from Qatar.
I’m sure the fact that she was a registered lobbyist for Qatar from 2019 to 2025 has nothing to do with her analysis of this grift.
She was paid $115,000 a month by Qatar, for a total of $8.3 million.
Clarence Thomas will weigh in on the legality of accepting gifts like this as soon as he has parked the RV.
The word plane does not appear in the Constitution.
It is all good, no problem.
It could if you thought outside the box.
He parks it at Walmart, too, when traveling. What could that mean? 🤔
#. Gift from Qatar– The Hill reports President Trump ordered a new plane and paid Boeing 6 (six) years ago but Boeing just can’t deliver he said and he’s tired of it. He might ask for the money back and just buy it from Qatar instead.
It’s not finalized and it was a discussion between the dept of defense both nations.
Perhaps Boeing might get busy or return the money. The House can purchase it from Qatar. Ridiculous…
#. Bondi was also part of DJT team during impeachment. After AG , Florida, she worked at Ballard law and worked for Qatar in an anti human trafficking case ahead of FIFA, and worked for Kuwait on extortion case both part of Ballard. She is a registered foreign agent in doing so.
Sources varied for above. Politico had most info. Did not listen to Bondis confirmation hearings when these issues came up.
She’s really sharp and well paid, true.
The plane? Boeing should return the money and purchase from Qatar. They have one.
Poor Anon
The plane is to replace aging AF One.
Its a gift not to Trump but to the US.
But you knew this.
-G
Attorney General Pam Bondi has cleared the transaction and concluded it will not violate a Constitutional tenet that no government official can accept a gift “from any King, Prince or foreign State.” The plane will reportedly be transferred to the Air Force while Trump uses it for the balance of his term and then it will be “donated” to the foundation he has set up to build his presidential library.
Once in the possession of his foundation, he can use it for personal travel.
It is a direct gift to Trump, and also a direct bribe.
Even if Trump never gets actual personal possession of the plane, it is still a direct bribe to influence his decisions while he is in office.
Any fool can understand what is going on here, even MAGA morons.
What does one do when Boeing fails to deliver a back ordered plane to replace aging AF1? Try China maybe?
The two Air Force 1’s are 35 years old. The oldest Boeing B-52’s still in service are 65 years old. AF-1 can hang around a little longer.
Well, he could get a Cessna for around town. Catch a ride on a military transport otherwise?
Do you , anon, also object to all the money funneled via Qatar into our universities and foreign student visas?
Anon, cite your source…thanks
Why do you MAGA morons play this stupid “cite your sources” game.
Have you ever heard of Google
Look it up yourself.
Want to know what sources were used for disinformation most likely. Saves time.
Source- self
Yes, ordered by Trump 6 years ago , paid and never delivered? Is that also correct?
Purchase from Qatar as they have one. No reason for a gift after Boeing returns money? Correct?
#. It cannot be accepted. The appearance of possible compromise suffices.
Yes, yes …
I said it when they were designated by Obama, the traitor. I’ll say it again. She and Kagan, and now Jackson, are the three most worthless broads whoever sat on the court. The previous two were installed for one reason and one reason only, to ensure that Obama, the traitor’s, legacy continued under President Hillary. I thank GOD every day that President Trump was elected to stop that destruction.
Sotomayor and others began with Affirmative action. It was a poor opinion. George H.W. Bush was perhaps one of the worst presidents.
Sonia is hot, hot hot! Like a tamale!
Gag me with a spoon!
Green-background anonymous is a troll paid by the Chinese Communist Party. Take that into account when reading any of the garbage he writes.
Abortion rights are human rites, and immigration reform (e.g. labor arbitrage), are no ethical vice.
No, they aren’t.
Trump may be brilliant at marketing and business, but not knowing about America’s system of government will ultimately harm Republicans and gun owners.
Trump in 2025 apparently believes that presidents have authority to overturn constitutional-amendments through executive orders. Trump already tried this on the 14th Amendment in January of 2025 and is hinting at overturning the 22nd Amendment before the 2028 presidential election.
If any president can overturn the 14th and 22nd Amendments illegally through executive order – any future president can do the same thing to the 2nd Amendment! That’s the damage Trump is trying to do.
If Republicans and gun owners lose their gun rights, don’t blame Democrats – Trump created this precedent!
Looks like George’s communist overlords have given him a vacation and are paying you to fill in for him.
Oldman,
It does look so. I hope the USAID money disbursed to nitwits and crooks runs out soon.
No, they haven’t.
Liar.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/04/trump-third-term-economy-tariffs-constitution/83443855007/
Trump said he’s “looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody, ideally a great Republican, a great Republican to carry it forward.” He added: “I’ll be an eight-year president; I’ll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important, to be honest with you.”
Apparently you don’t understand the first thing about history or the intended form of government.
Yes, I do.
Poor Anon.
Yet again you fail to understand what you see.
(Seems like its either Gigly or Denise posting here…)
The issue is how to interpret what was written in the 14th Amendment.
Does it apply to illegal aliens? Clearly not and that will be up to SCOTUS to decide.
Jonathan: When we say the DJT 2.0 regime is the most openly corrupt in American history this is no mere hyperbole. Here is the latest example:
At the end of last month the Trump family company announced a deal to build a luxury golf resort in Qatar. The deal reportedly includes a Saudi partner, called “Dar Global”. The project will be developed by the Qatari government. In his second-term ethics pledge DJT said none of his company’s foreign deals would include foreign governments. So DJT has broken another promise.
About a week or so ago DJT said he was unhappy with the delays at Boeing in replacing his 30 yr old B-747s. He said he was looking elsewhere to replace one of the Air Force Ones. Then this week ABC News broke with the story that DJT was “poised to accept” a $400 million B-747-8 from Qatar. According to ABC the new plane is “a gift [from Qatar] that is to be available for use by President Donald Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation…”. See any connection between the building of DJT golf resort in Qatar and the gift of the plane? Just connect the dots!
On Monday DJT will begin his the first foreign official trip of his second administration. DJT plans to stop only in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and, of course, Qatar where DJT will accept delivery of his new plane. He likes his new toy because the insides of the plane are lined in gold!
What is remarkable this time around is that DJT is not hiding his corruption. It’s right out in the open for everyone to see. Now had Joe Biden accepted a $400 million plane as gift from a foreign country you would be burning the midnight oil writing about the “vast corruption and bribery scandal of the Biden family” and Mike Johnson and the MAGA House would be filing articles of impeachment the next day. But when DJT openly and corruptly accepts gifts from Qatar or other countries you suddenly go silent. Why is that?
According to reports, Pammie Jo Blondie wrote a memo that says this is okey dokey. The bleach must have soaked into her nearly 60 year old brain, or maybe she didn’t carefully research the issues of the emoluments clause and the law regarding gifts from foreign governments–or maybe she was just following orders to come up with a memo that approves this obvious bribe. Nevertheless, all “gifts” from foreign governments belong to the PEOPLE of the United States of America. This was not a loan–it was a gift. Just ask the Clintons—they had to return multiple much smaller gifts when Bill left office. There is no such thing as a gift being given to “The Air Force”, and then transferred to a “presidential library” in January of the year Trump finally leaves office. The “Air Force” is not some private corporation–it, and all of its aircraft belong to the people of the United States. And, according to Rick Wilson, Republican strategist, it has the appearance of a flying whorehouse–all gold plated this and that in very poor taste, especially considering the economic suffering we Americans are about to go through.
Of course, this entire affair is quintessential Trump–the fat one is not satisfied with Air Force One, and Boeing hasn’t been able to work fast enough to suit him, so he saw a chance to leverage approval for a golf course in exchange for a free luxury airplane. This stinks so bad. There is no defense whatsoever.
That’s funny. I’m sure that he has over 25 shell LLCs that the CCP deposited over $5 million of a forgivable loan. When everything is revealed, there will never be another democrat president or elected official. I’m sure lots of republicans will be gone, too. The problem with leftists with Trump Derangement Syndrome is that everyone can see through their hypocrisy except themselves. I didn’t see any pearl clutching about Mendez or even the very public corruption that is going on with these non-producing, millionaire democrats.
A Biden Admn lover saying Trump is corrupt. Fancy that.
When someone makes a statements like the following,“When we say the DJT 2.0 regime is the most openly corrupt in American history this is no mere hyperbole..” I know for a fact they have been radicalized.
It makes not one bit of difference, what are the facts, such rabid hatred of our President is apparent.
This kind of hatred that has been used in the past and in the present and can easily be dangerous and harmful. It is vividly described in George Orwell’s 1984, Two Minutes Hate.
Hmm, maybe someone else can lend him one? I don’t like Qatar either.
Had Joe Biden accepted a $400 million dollar plane he would be hailed as saving taxpayer dollars, and strengthening our ties to the middle east.
Advertise worldwide for a Boeing, slightly used but in excellent condition. Boeing can’t do it in 6 years?
Maybe buy a Chinese plane?
Hoax
TDS is lethal and denial is not a river in Africa, Mr. Dolt. Stay in your lane….and perhaps get a life.
just another democrat activist judge that has no professional cooth
What if a conservative judge told lawyers to fight for the “Heller” ruling upholding gun rights?
A judge telling lawyers to support the U.S. Constitution – would 2nd Amendment gun rights be political or constitutional?
A judge telling lawyers to fight for any political cause is improper, doesn’t matter the cause. If judges are going to urge lawyers to do anything, it should be to be good and ethical lawyers, not effective political activists. The judge who says what Sotomayor says, or any variation thereof, is a political hack masquerading as a judge.
That is sitomayor and an Obama appointee. It’s consistent with her beliefs.
Apples and oranges comment. An irrelevant comparison.
“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.”
No. That’s not her job. Her job is to apply the law without fear or favor. And that includes not favoring people who can’t stand up for themselves. Being poor, or a minority, or however else she wants to define it, does not automatically make one right under the law.
True.
Strip away all identity in any case and look at the law and the case brought and argued. The arguments presented are sorely lacking in most cases. Justices aren’t to fill in gaps. The justices will often ask leading questions to get an angle into the case. That shouldn’t be done should it? In most cases it’s the best attorney who wins and not justice.
Diversity is lacking in background preparedness by degrees and courses of study and not so much in gender, race, etc. These are history and literature degrees. It’s everywhere. Anyone read Sotomayor’s PhD or masters thesis?
^^^ She doesn’t have have one. She has a BA in history from Princeton. Her senior thesis was Munoz Marin’s effect on Puerto Rico and its development. She was a Puerto Rican activist and did well elected to phi beta kaput. She then obtained her JD from Yale.
I know she’s well informed. The others are as weird. 😂. Probably the reason Sonja thought mifepristone was aspirin.
^^ Anyone think the phrase “wise Latina” is racist? Personally, we need more smart Jews on the court.
Anon– “Anyone think the phrase “wise Latina” is racist?”
Of course it is. Imagine a white person saying something similar.
As for the rest of your comment, I recognize that, on average, Jewish people are smarter than Asians and Asians are smarter than whites. But those are averages spread on a Bell curve so nearly every ethnicity is going to produce brilliant people.
Instead of choosing judges by race it is better to choose them by intelligence and wisdom and understanding and love of the law. They should also be able to say what a woman is.
as a supreme black robe, the job is even more narrow that this.
it is not to set law, or make policy, but solely to make a ruling when there are constitutional conflicts. that is when two or more lower courts have produced conflicting rulings.
that is the job…there is no other purpose for this court. judicial review is not a thing..it has been allowed to evolve.
I actually do not have a problem with black robes speaking their minds. It’s ridiculous to expect or to attempt to enforce human beings from speaking their minds about matters they feel strongly about…and even and especially when they are making grand mistakes in judgements. we get the courts we deserve I think it is best expressed. The alternative solution is to simply create robots that logically and mathematically “calculate” each case with the most pristine and falsifibale and reproducible solutions in every single case. But that means there is no human factor. no discernment about what justice actually means..what it feels like. As much as we would want to have black robes (or robots) to call each game a ball or a strike…there are other factors in umpiring a game that are necessary…because the world is not neat…and it isn’t fair..and there is always some other consequence to consider when making a sweeping ruling. I think this is where the radicals progressives have made the greatest mistakes: assuming the consequences of decisions on the bench are worth the risk…but that risk is very real and it happens to impact many lives..for the very few. The “right” black robe supporters can also make the same mistakes…thinking that a literal (or preferred literal translation) of the constitution solves all the world’s problems. This is also a failure to recognize the consequences do happen. The role of a judge “should be” to take these things into consideration, to be inspired and brilliant but not to operate as some unemotional robot. For each case, requires special care and attention.
a good example of where things have gone very wrong: how is it that a person can be charged with two murders (a mother and the human being in her womb), but the same mother is not to be charged with murder for aborting the child?
this is the kind of fundamental breaks from all reason, logic and morality. and the same black robes punted this to the states.
this exposes a deeper truth: the supreme court does not have any crediblity in making decisions over the lives of human beings.
God Bless America
Bingo!!!
Trump said almost the same thing that incited a coup attempt on January 6.
The primary difference is Sotomayor’s speech advocates legal and constitutional action. Trump’s words advocated illegal and constitutionally-subversive action (subverting America’s system of government).
Even in 2025, Trump could have legally advocated support of amending the 14th Amendment through the constitutional-amendment process. Trump instead chose to amend the U.S. Constitution illegally through an unconstitutional executive order.
Sotomayor’s call for legal constitutional action to lawyers is also strengthened under the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – which protects unnamed rights and existing rights from gun rights to abortion.
Jonathan: Seems DJT is having another problem with one of his nominees. It’s Matt Gaetz all over again! This week DJT had to withdraw Ed Martin as his nominee for DC US Attorney. Maybe it had something to do with Martin’s support for the J. 6 insurrectionists? Or possibly Martin’s unhinged threat to prosecute Chuck Schumer? Who knows. But even MAGA Senate Republicans thought Martin was another bridge too far.
And who has DJT replaced Martin with? Drum roll please. It’s Fox host Jeanine Pirro. We should not be surprised. Fox has been the training academy for positions in the DJT regime. Do we need to reminded of Pete Hegseth, Sean Duffy, Pam Bondi, et. al.? I can imagine the uproar among the MAGA faithful had Joe Biden selected only hosts from NPR/PBS to serve in his administration. But any uproar from the faithful in the selection of Pirro? Only crickets!
And what is Pirro’s claim to fame that makes her uniquely qualified to serve as the head of the most important prosecutor’s office in the nation? Well, many, many years ago she was the DA of Westchester, NY. She also wrote 6 books and hosted the “Judge Peanine Pirro” TV show. She also reached infamy when she was a named defendant in the 2021 defamation lawsuit by Smartmatic against Fox. Pirro’s defamatory statements about Smartmatic resulted in the $787.8 million settlement with Fox.
So why would DJT want someone without any qualifications to serve as DC US Attorney? Pretty simple. Pirro is a loyal MAGA supporter and will do DJT’s bidding when it comes to deciding who gets prosecuted in DC. And take it from me. It won’t be anyone within the criminal gang that surrounds “Pope” DJT!
SNL’s cold open last Saturday had Cecily Strong playing drunky Jeannie Pirro, who actually HAS appeared drunk on-air on DJT’s favorite network, slurring her words. What an embarrassment to the US–having this loudmouth sot as the “acting” DC US Attorney–Trump has to dig deep to find people who will ignore their oath to the Constitution to do whatever he commands them to do. But, because this position requires Senate approval, and Ed Martin is toxic, his nomination had to be withdrawn. One of the J6 insurrectionists he pardoned had posed online as Hitler. According to “MSN”:
“President Donald Trump’s doomed pick for top federal prosecutor in D.C., Ed Martin, has a history of picking fights in public life, attacking political enemies and allies he disagreed with, judges he secretly opposed and subordinates he wrongly fired, a Washington Post examination of his record over two decades shows.
Martin’s nomination faltered in the Senate, then Trump on Thursday announced he would soon announce a replacement. The same headlong style that fed controversies over his 15 weeks as interim U.S. attorney has over the years both fueled his rise through conservative politics and burned him repeatedly, costing him jobs, tens of thousands of dollars in fines and court contempt citations.”
It was Pirro’s big mouth that caused Fox to be liable to Smartmatic resulting in the multi-million dollar defamation payout. From “LawShun”:
“In 2005, she was a candidate in the New York Senate race, but her campaign was marred by controversy. She faced scrutiny for plotting to bug her then-husband’s boat to catch him in an affair, which created a scandal that rocked her campaign. Despite endorsements from prominent figures such as Republican Governor George Pataki and donors like designer Tommy Hilfiger and Donald Trump, she dropped out of the Senate race due to pressure from party chiefs and lagging fundraising efforts.
Pirro’s political ambitions did not end with the Senate race. She set her sights on becoming the New York Attorney General, but her campaign was again impacted by the ongoing fallout from her personal life. In 2006, two months after the revelation of the tapes, she lost the race for state Attorney General to future Governor Andrew Cuomo in a landslide. This defeat marked the end of her political career, and she pivoted to a career in television and media.”
Federalist 78 by Hamilton notes limits on the judiciary:
“The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
Courts are getting around that and are exercising FORCE and WILL by assuming their equitable powers are without limit.
That claim makes the least powerful branch of government the supreme power in government and tyrannical in the Greek sense of tyranny, rule without lawful authority.
This judicial insurrection must be stopped by the President and the Congress acting together or independently.
The country was relatively safe when wise lawyers were favored for judicial appointments but not safe with the Jacobins and outright fools the radical Democrats have shoved onto the bench.
Hamilton concluded with:
“Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices”
Earlier he refers to the good behavior provisions in state constitutions which should be appropriate examples. I haven’t yet looked at those constitutions but I will try to check later to see more clearly what Hamilton intended.
The FEDERALIST blog also frowns on Sotomayor and her activism.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/05/09/dear-justice-sotomayor-your-left-wing-partisanship-is-showing
Hamilton was a poofer.
And Peter Buttedge was a pipe puffer, right?
Also in the same Federalist Paper, Hamilton also said the Judicial Branch – especially Judicial Branch “juries” were designed to be an “obstacle to the success of the prosecutor” (ie: Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorneys).
Hamilton then said in the same Federal Paper, that past legal “precedent” should guide current court rulings unless that it was deemed unconstitutional-precedent.
If a past court ruling (precedent) by an equal or higher court was deemed unconstitutional, then the U.S. Constitution supersedes that unconstitutional-precedent. If new precedent is deemed “constitutional” it supersedes past unconstitutional court rulings.
This is also what the last part of the 84 Federalist Papers say!
I’ll read #84.
And 71
Anon- “Also in the same Federalist Paper, Hamilton also said the Judicial Branch – especially Judicial Branch “juries” were designed to be an “obstacle to the success of the prosecutor”
The tainted or biased juries haven’t been much of an obstacle in the Trump cases in New York or DC.
Nor were they an obstacle to a judicial lynching in the Officer Chauvin [George Floyd] case. Though, the jury was likely terrified by reporters trying to follow them home, by the fortress arrangement around the courthouse, and by the fact that at least one juror was connected to BLM and likely to dox them to the mob. There certainly should have been a change of venue in that case but the ‘judge’ had his own view of the matter. As for appeals, the appellate courts of Minnesota appear to be full of Jacobin Sotomayors and cowards in my opinion.
There was a similar case in Miami when Lozano, a police officer of South American descent (Colombia I think), shot and killed a black man. He was charged with murder and convicted after a local riot. When the jury revealed that they voted for conviction because they were afraid of another riot the conviction was vacated and the trial was held again but this time in Orlando. Lozano was acquitted.
It would have been appropriate for the courts of Minnesota to remember the Lozano case but, in my opinion, the courts were also terrified of the mob and innocent officers were tossed into prison as sacrifices to the God of the Mob which is ever hungry.
Also, Anon should know that juries have no equitable powers and can’t issue TROs or injunctions.
Apparently juries can nullify the law. Quite amazing isn’t it…
Name one decision where the “wise Latina” voted against her political belief system because the Constitution demanded it. An example of what an honest and intelligent patriotic Justice does in this type of situation is when Scalia voted to allow flag burning under the 1st A even though it was anathema to his belief system. Name one time this lefty lightweight did the same. CAN’T DO IT because leftists only care about their political agenda and not the Constitution or even fairness.
Name one decision? Let’s go global! Name one citation of the Constitution that justifies Health and Human Services; exactly where in the Constitution IS that bit of nonsense regarding endeavors that must be accomplished utterly in the free markets of the private sector?
Then proceed to reveal any citable legal basis in Article 1, Section 8, or the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property for the rest of these constitutional aberrations and illegalities, which can only be found in the Communist Manifesto:
Admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
The whole place is comprised of unconstitutional communism.
The Land of the Free.
Right?
The Land of the Once-Free.
The Land of the Free—No More!
Real deep, Fredo. Ever think about becoming a philosopher? Or a poet?
It’s actually true as part of an economy and because of the commerce clause everything has been dumped into it including abortion etc.
Amen she or her staff leaked the Roe v overturned decision she should resign or should be held in contempt by the vourt
🤔 leaker
Flag burning was an incorrect opinion. Flag burning is a demonstration. It would be better if actual SPEECH and PRESS were adhered to as those progress in form as tv, movies, radio etc. Protests with chants include brief chants in words but the lions share is a demonstration, an activity such as walking etc. Is a parade really free speech? As in parading meaning movement or as a thing a noun. I doubt the founders thought a raid was free speech. It’s an assembly to conduct a form of speech in some cases only. An assembly is a thing.
If you own the the flag…I own my house. Anyone mind if I burn it down? Free speech.
Sotomenor has slways been a disaster!
The real question is. Why do New Yorkers hate so much? The nastiest group of subhumans one can meet in general. What does that?
Studies have shown that if you pack a large number of rats in a small space, they will turn on each other. New Yorkers seem to act the same.
It could be crowded conditions. Some have never seen a horizon or sunrise sunset in the valleys of cement.
Women… that’s all. They have destroyed more throughout history than any species.
Your mother.
Men are the destructive sex. They are fascinated by bombs and firearms and violent video games. They start the wars on our planet. Along with women, they have achieved good works, but testosterone rules. Young males in non-human primate societies are segregated.
“Women…have destroyed more throughout history…” Bull. Spoken like a garden-variety incel.
Abortive ideation.
Well you aren’t wrong. More territory means more food. More food means more breeding. It’s a feed and breed scheme much like rabbits or goathead sticker weeds unless by reason it’s made into something more.
Sotomayor is a feeder trying to give Puerto Ricans more breeding space, territory. Simple as that. Wise Latina drew the line at that inane statement. Wonder if she thinks Puerto Rico should be free of the US?
^^^ so who is she? I just took wiki for some claims as follows:
Parents poverty immigrants from Puerto Rico lived in Bronx housing projects. Father died when she was 9. Mother raised 2 children
Diagnosed with type 1 diabetes age 7 with insulin. English as a 2nd language wiki reports.
She says she got into Princeton because of AA, affirmative action, with low test scores. Same for Yale law. She was extremely active in extracurricular activities which made up for it. The activities involved systemic racism, CRT, etc. She’s for criminal defendant reform and reform of laws that target races other than white , seriously, because more people of color are incarcerated. That’s the reason.
She believes testing is biased and people with underprivileged environments do worse than privileged people. That’s true.
It’s the systems fault. The laws fault. Whites fault. It’s just not fair and equal.
Nothing is , sonia, unless everything is destroyed and everyone rides a donkey. How about a wheelchair? Now that is truly underprivileged no matter the ban account.
The source is a poor one. She went far for someone with nothing but that’s not your fault.
Have a Christ blessed happiness. Floyd, hope you’re on a cruise.
#. Let’s say affirmative action was a cheat on the system that actually resulted in allowing sotomayor ,an incompetent, to rise to power. That is what happened and will continue to happen.
In another way sotomayor has incredible bad luck as many people do have, too. Father died mother widow, she a type of orphan, born in a bad luck nation of origin, ill with diabetes, living in abject poverty. She too her bad luck and sat it on courts. Her bad luck can now bleed out into all the land. Otherwise she would have risen to power working in restaurant if it hadn’t been for ambition.
Who places such high esteem upon ambition? We honor ambition in justice Sotomayor? Very serious bad luck we all can share.
Pity? Yes, I suppose it’s appropriate.
Provable. They could mess up a wet dream.