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.
Another protest sign waiver in black robes. I think we have had enough of them. This is one dumb bunny! Recusal anyone?
She was Appointed to uphold and obey the constitution and now she is not. Therefore, she should not serve.
I agree with Sonya, but from the viewpoint of a conservative populist libertarian who thinks the text of our laws mean what the dictionaries of the English language say they mean. There is an ideological fight going on and politics is the venue. Lawyers cannot sit on the sidelines. If there are laws, including the Constitution, which need to be changed, let’s use the procedures in the Constitution to change them. Do not participate in the prevailing legalistic intellectually dishonest “work-arounds.” The fight against socialism, collectivism, top-down government, and group rights, which oppose capitalism, free markets, private property, and individual civil rights, must be fought and won decisively. Let’s have at in the political arena! But if you are a sitting judge like Sonya, read the law and look at the facts and decide the case without attempting to misconstrue the meaning of the words in our laws. And if you can’t do that, resign.
I want to thank the now second least intelligent SCOTUS judge for providing another glaring example there is not just no such thing as a ‘diversity benefit’ but that ‘diversity’ is a detriment. Wake up.
this sob is an activist, not a impartial judge
Jonathan: It looks like the ABC revelation that DJT is about to receive a “flying palace” plane worth $400 million from Qatar is a story that just won’t go away. The mainstream media is now all over this blatant act of corruption by DJT. Even crazy Laura Loomer, who seems to have DJT’s ear, is against the deal: “I love President Trump. I would take a bullet for him. But, I have to call a spade a spade. We cannot accept a $400 million ‘gift’ from jihadists in suits…This is going to be such a stain on the admin. if this is true…I’m so disappointed”. If Loomer is “disappointed” you can imagine what others in MAGA are thinking.
Now the gift of a plane worth $400 million would be the largest from a foreign government in the history of the US presidency. In a normal functioning DOJ the AG would request an opinion letter from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel to determine whether there is a potential violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution (Art. 1, Section 9,Clause 8). Most legal ethics experts say it would be a violation because a president cannot accept “any present” from a foreign government without the Consent of Congress. But Pam Bondi has gutted the OLC. There is no one there to issue an opinion letter. So in an “act of solidarity” with her boss Bondi declares the plane is not a “direct gift” to DJT because it goes directly to the US Air Force and will only be turned over to DJT once he leaves office. That’s a bogus claim!
And Bondi has another problem–a conflict of interest. After she left FL’s AG position Bondi went to work as a FARA registered lobbyist for the Qatar government in DC. She earned $150,00 per month for that lobbying gig until her confirmation as DJT new US AG. So Bondi can’t be trusted to issue an impartial opinion on the Qatar gift to her boss.
The DOJ, under Bondi, has been turned into DJT’s private law firm–going after his political enemies and rubberstamping his kleptocracy agenda. Under Bondi the idea of the DOJ as “fair and impartial” has gone out the window!
It’s a biatch when the rabbit has the gun! Isn’t it, snowflake? Enjoy the payback—-you are going to get everything you deserve.
Revenge is such a noble goal.
Keep your off-topic love letters out of the comments section. We are discussing the corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, Jus. Sotomeyor’s massive conflict of interset, that invalidates any case she hears related to Trump or his Administration, requiring her to recuse herself ir call her every opinion into question.
Where was she when Biden’s justice department was targeting conservatives as “domestic terrorists”. The double standard is alive and well.
OT, OT ALERT
listen to the trash programming on the radio of Glen Beck and Sean Hannity. It has to be AI it’s so idiotic. It has been reduced to gobble gobble noises and onomatopea (spelling). It’s supposed right wing conservative. Congrats
Leftists just can’t help themselves. They see any disagreement as an existential threat that must be eliminated.
Time to pack the court. We are facing an existential threat.
Aleksandr Solzenitsyn:
“All of the Communist Parties, upon attaining power, have become completely merciless.
But at the stage before they achieve power, it is necessary to use disguises.”