Justice Brett Kavanaugh is accustomed to unrelenting personal attacks from the left that began with his nomination to the Court. This week, however, the ad hominem insults came not from cable programs but a colleague. Justice Sonia Sotomayor used an appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law to level a personal dig at Kavanaugh as an out-of-touch elitist.
I have long criticized the growing number of public statements by justices on controversial subjects and cases, including Justice Sotomayor. However, this appearance represented a new low in lashing out at a colleague as effectively blinded by his own privilege.
In her comments, Sotomayor raised Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo:
“I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops. This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour… Those hours that they took you away, nobody’s paying that person. And that makes a difference between a meal for him and his kids that night and maybe just cold supper…”
She then referred to her own background as giving her experience and knowledge that is apparently missing in colleagues such as Kavanaugh:
“Life experiences teach you to think more broadly and to see things others may not. And when I have a moment where I can express that on behalf of people who have no other voice, then I’m being given a very rare privilege.”
It was reminiscent of Sotomayor’s reference to being a “wise Latina” on the bench. While on the Second Circuit, then-judge Sotomayor explained that her life experiences offered a “difference” not shared by other colleagues. In a 2001 lecture at Berkeley law school titled “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” she heralded the difference that “our gender and national origins may and will make … in our judging.”
In her latest comments, she is suggesting that her interaction with hourly wage earners allows her to see things that Kavanaugh does not in these cases. The claim that she “sees things that others may not” suggests that the privileged, insulated existence of Kavanaugh blinds him to the true merits of cases before him.
Notably, Justice Sotomayor also told the students and faculty that she has a friendship with most, but apparently not all, of her colleagues:
“I dare say that with virtually all of them, I certainly have a civil relationship. And with many of them, I think I dare say that I have a friendship,”
After this speech, I would not expect a social media friend invite from Kavanaugh.
It is true that Kavanaugh went to elite schools, but so did Sotomayor, who graduated from Princeton and Yale.
Both of Kavanaugh’s parents were indeed lawyers, but it is odd that Sotomayor would miss the compelling story of his mother, Martha. She was a history professor who went to law school while raising a family and eventually became one of the minority of women on the state bench. That would also seem to be “gender origins” that Sotomayor previously cited as key in her view of impactful judging.
However, what was most striking was Sotomayor’s backhanded suggestion that Kavanaugh “doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” The suggestion is that he has avoided — and continues to avoid — interactions with people who get paid on an hourly basis — while she is more inclusive in her circle of friends. It is obviously false, but more importantly, petty and unfair.
The attack suggests that, while she is a “wise Latina,” Kavanaugh is a privileged prig on the Court. The fact is that many blue-collar (if not most) workers identify more with aspects of Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence. At a minimum, over half of the country is more likely to embrace his approach than that of Justice Sotomayor, who has been criticized for her comments in oral argument on issues ranging from abortion to puberty blockers to COVID restrictions.
Justice Kavanaugh has distinguished himself in public service, including work with the homeless.
Justice Sotomayor has repeatedly raised eyebrows with her comments off the bench, including seemingly calling on lawyers and students to join in a political campaign to change abortion laws.
In her favor, Justice Sotomayor has also defended colleagues like Justice Clarence Thomas, explained the reasonable disagreements among the justices, and opposed rationales on the left for packing the court. She is not someone who I view as gratuitously rude or cruel. I believe that she values collegiality and the Court as an institution. However, this was another injudicious moment during public events.
There is a wide chasm between the jurisprudence of these two justices. However, that difference is due to fundamental and principled differences in how courts should approach constitutional and statutory interpretation.
Yet, these comments were a disturbing departure from the tradition of collegiality and civility on the court. It was unfair and unwarranted. Hopefully, Justice Sotomayor will take an upcoming occasion during her speaking tour to withdraw the comment.
That would be the “wise” thing to do.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Sure, one’s life experiences can add depth to one’s character. But it should not color a judges or justice interpretation of law.
As for the working class hero thing, I have worked with some good people and others who were there just to collect a pay check.
Collegiality and civility are among the traditional virtues that have been superseded by political passion. The character of the country has been changed for the worse by a 24/7 concern with politics.
That’s a media-saturated observor’s impression. What about your direct p2p interactions with people around you?
In the realm of everyday life NOT COVERED by media, I’m seeing traditional norms of friendliness, generosity, empathy and civility.
Her observation that Kavanaugh has led a privileged, sheltered life seems to be true. So what?
The American Constitution is modeled after Locke’s Second Treatise. It promises an adherence to “natural rights” and ordered individual liberty. The Constitution was ratified based on those promises.
Any law, regulation, tax, bureaucratic ruling, judicial opinion and even subsequently ratified Constitutional amendments that undermine the philosophical underpinning of natural rights and ordered liberty are contrary to the intentions of those who ratified the Constitution.
If she wants to criticize Kavanaugh’s analysis or opinions, the only legitimate basis for doing so is that his analysis and opinions somehow violate natural rights and ordered liberty. That she thinks her life experiences are somehow more valuable than his in making those determinations is irrational. Life experiences of a justice is wholly and completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether interpretations are consistent with natural rights and ordered liberty. Period. The end.
And that they can write a coherent, logical opinion…
Define coherent and logical when one is a conservative and the other is a Hispanic woman who’s a supreme court justice, unlike you, a whitey girl
Justice Sotomayor is acting like a pompous ass. She would have been far better off keeping those kind of opinions to herself. What a fool.
Steve, its okay if you insult and defame her right? That anger… but what did she do to you to generate such hate? Hispanic women scare you? Keep those opinions to yourself. What a fool.
My wife and I were talking about how so much of what we’re dealing with at present amounts to the ruins remaining after the Obama left was in charge for 18 years. Sotomayor is no exception.
Honestly: I can’t point to a single thing they accomplished that didn’t leave some form of destruction in its wake. If we can’t trust our justices, we are in trouble.
Curious, what destruction? The country still exists, just white folk are losing their minds that non-whites are gaining control. Just an observation.
For a start, 20mil illegals that would never qualify for asylum under the current law, no response to the Oct 7 attack on Israel, no response to Russia invading Ukraine, no response by Obama for the Russians invading Crimea, no response to China building bases across the south pacific, the remaining effects of the highest inflation in 50yrs, widespread corruption and fraud by USAID, how much time do you have?
@Anonymous
ACA, Common Core, SEL, DEI, CRT, to name a few, and that’s the tip of the iceberg.
James,
Dont forget the weakening of our military.
@Upstate
I haven’t. My list was just the tip of the iceberg; we could go so much further, likely for hours, as my wife and I did.
Anonymous wrote, “…just white folk are losing their minds that non-whites are gaining control.”
Maybe you aren’t intelligent enough to realize that writing a statement like that makes you sound like an anti-white racist.
So Anonymous, stand up for your core beliefs, are you actually a racist or just a moron?
Be honest, if that’s possible.
“what destruction?”
Destruction occurs when institutional memory fails, and a society forfeits its history, its laws, and its values. We do not yet see fallen walls; rather, we witness the insidious destruction of the mind and the foundational understanding held by people like you.
They don’t call that closet homo fraud the Divider in Chief for nothing James. We are and have been in trouble, $40 Trillion dollars worth of trouble.
In Justive Sotomayor*s opinion,, a U.S. D,istrict Judge decides about DFT*s immigration policy and is privileged to block the administration’s third-party deportation policy and giving SCOTUS a stiff arm.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf
She’s just ticked off because Kavanaugh pulled a brilliant colloquy with the ACLU lawyer (Wang) in the Trump v. Barbara oral Argument. Kav got Wang to agree to accept a Court decision in her clients’ favor using INA Statute as the determinative law. Sotomayor was hoping for a newly clarified Constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment and its prior use in the Wong Kim Ark case. Why? So that, even if Birthplace Citizenship Reform passes Congress narrowing eligibility similar to the E.O., that revision of statute can be ruled unconstitutional — using Barbara as recent precedent.
Kavanaugh may have out-foxxed her. If the case ends the way Kavanaugh proposed (and ACLU/Wang accepted), then it upholds the Constitutional power of Congress to adapt Citizenship eligibility law to the times (as authorized in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4). I think Kav would rather avoid any reliance on the 14th Amendment, but if forced to in order to build a majority, he can also rely on 14A Article V. The 3 liberals would rather the 14th not be cited in that manner.
My headcount says such a “middle path” ruling is all but inevitable:
– There are at most 2 votes to uphold Trump’s E.O. Who on the Court wants to give the next Democrat President power to undo Trump’s Citizenship policy with the stroke of a pen?
– There are only 3 votes to give an expanded Constitutional interpretation to 14A explicitly including birth tourists, illegal immigrants, vacationing tourists, and foreign students.
What option is left to form a majority?….something neither Trump nor the ACLU wants — a path left clear to kick the policy ball from the White House over to Congress. And, have reasonable, well-structured legislation — with ample time given to states and counties to adjust systems and procedures — and leaving no birth situations ambiguous — for such legislation to be able to survive challenge in the Federal Courts. The precedent being Trump v. Barbara’s deference to current Congressional statute at the time.
Sotomayor saw her position crumble when Kav got the ACLU to agree to accept a win based on existing statute.
Interesting, but negated by the fact that you have an issue with a Hispanic woman.
Awww. Did you hurt yourself during your little temper tantrum?
with 1 vote
pbinca,
That is a interesting take on it. If true, could explain the jab.
@pbinca
I trust the ACLU about as far as I can throw them with my pinky finger (actually had a neighbor that worked for them, her husband was an actual card carrying communist from Cuba); that they are even in the conversation speaks volumes; not to their integrity, but to what precisely is on the line – if they were fine they would not be saying diddly. There are no longer any words uttered by the modern left that should ever be considered honest or for anyone’s benefit but themselves and their most privileged of constituents (which this woman who worked for the ACLU was).
Her comment about the children of “professional” or salaried parents is offensive. Millions of us worked hourly jobs in the summer and on school breaks. This includes the children of the current president. Having worked with and known many “hourly workers” Im quite certain that im more in touch with those hard working Americans than ANY JUSTICE who got thru their education on scholarships paid for by the hard working folks I knew. And no I had no scholarships for my education. My parents worked extra to pay for it. There are millions like me in this country and its time for the rabble on the left to acknowledge that.
“Her comment about the children of “professional” or salaried parents is offensive.” Offensive? Seriously? An simple and accurate observation… is offensive. My gawd, what whiners Americans have become.
Anon’s problem is with the fact that the person in question is Hispanic, female and has strong opinions. Just like my mother. But she was white.
I am a professional. I will guarantee that I have worked more hourly paid jobs than you have. Your comment is specious and offensive.
Professional? You jest? And your response is childish… Working with min. wage non-whites scares you right so you call yourself a professional? Whatever you say…
Ah here we go with the “white boy bad” routine that gets whipped out by the “other-than-Caucasian” bunch whenever they can’t put a logical thought together in a sentence. Big yawn here as we have been hearing some moronic dribble of this since the 1960’s.
That dribble you’re referring to, is the old white boy tribe beating its drums again. A Hispanic, Black women on the court. Must strike fear in your heart. You must be deathly afraid if you resort to that moronic dribble.
I wonder how well Justice Sotomayer’s “judicial logic” holds up, when applied to the life experience of Justice Thomas?
So now ole white boys are now defending po black boys?
Pathetic you don’t understand how racist your comment is.
But you do?
Isn’t Justice Sotomayor known as “The Wise Latina”
“Isn’t Justice Sotomayor known as “The Wise Latina””
Alternatively nicknamed “the stupid token Chola”…
Professor Turley’s post links to an article in Bloomberg Law glorifying the self-proclaimed “wise Latina” and her speech. Among other things, it reports that she is going to write a children’s book titled “Just Try.” She should try ridding the Court of her presence by retiring and spending all her time entertaining children – something for which this DEI hire by obama is better suited than Justice.
Educate me here on your system of nomenclature. Anyone hired for any position of power who is a non-white, non-male is a DEI hire? I’m just trying to understand how we’re defining people. Thank you!
The woman was well known when she sat on the bench in SDNY as a fool and obviously unqualified for the Federal bench. An obviously pandering move by George Bush.
Politics force people to change. Good for him. Oh, and he was a conservative. Dwell on that.
No but as long as there are laws and policies which mandate quotas and preference to certain groups then yes it can be assumed that a less qualified person may have been hired at the expense of a more qualified person.
Another good ole white boy, lashing out.
Gee James when did you change your Avatar? I smell an imposter.
How close is your smell organ to his evacuation shute?
Begone, tiresome troll.
@eight
Yup, not me. Wish some people had better things to do with their time, but c’est la vie.
James,
They do not. They spend all their time in their mommy and daddy’s basement, leeching off of them for everything as they are a 30-something Gen Z failure to launch. Then they attack those of us who are a benefit to society, contribute to society something meaningful. And we have jobs. Something they despise us for. Or, in some cases like GEB, OLLY and others, they have lead full lives, contributed to society, and are enjoying a well deserved retirement.
I am very tired of the “wise Latina” nonsense. If a fair survey of lawyers who appeared before the ‘wise Latina’ when she was on the bench in SDNY could be accomplished I have no doubt the result would be as follows: The ‘wise latina’ has zero judicial temperment and is dumber than a small soap dish. Just one man’s opinion.
Your opinion. Accepted. But she can’t have one?
She attended Princeton, then Yale Law, entirely due to the generosity of the very people that she now scorns. So from the age of about 17 onward, she lived a life so “elite” that few people can even imagine. So if it wasn’t for these wealthy elites, like Kavanaugh, and I don’t believe that he was anything more than a child from moderately successful parents, Sotomayor could likely be working in a retail store or possibly as a bank teller. Why not just be proud of your great accomplishments, while acknowledging, perhaps even expressing some gratitude for, those that provided you with massive assistance along the way?
When did we decide that a Supreme Court justice’s job description includes playing “representative” of this or that class or tribe. I do not need a “wise Latina,” a “devout Catholic,” or a judge who grew up in the hood. I need men and women who can forget all of that when they put on the robe and ask one question: what does the Constitution, as enacted, actually allow here.
Life experience can help you see real world facts more clearly, but it is seasoning, not the main ingredient, and it never becomes a license to tilt the scales toward “your” people.
When a justice leans into identity or biography and then uses it to suggest that colleagues are blind because they are the wrong color, class, or circle, she is not proving deeper wisdom. She is confessing that blind justice has been replaced by demographic justice, and that is the opposite of what we were promised.
You could not be so far off the mark than with this nonsense. Attacking a woman who is clearly your superior in every way imaginable is ironic, but expected from you good ole boys. You good ole white boys really get riled when a Hispanic or Black women mocks you kind. Get used to it old man, your days, your kind are numbered.
“Good ole white boys”? Your sexism is showing.
Sexism? So says a good ole white boy who’s riled?
“Get used to it old man, your days, your kind are numbered.”
Ah! There is that Gen Z, leftist hate and rage, wishing death upon anyone who would disagree with them.
” . . . mocks you kind.”
Is that English? Did you graduate college?
“one question: what does the Constitution, as enacted, actually allow here.”
Exactly correct. The sole task and authority of the Supreme Court is to determine what is, and what is not, compliant with the Constitution. Sotomayor’s condescending and pandering remarks show that she does not understand that, and, in turn, show that she does not belong on the Court.
Olly as anon.
“Olly as anon.”
Wrong as always, d1p$h1t.
/|\ I Don Wannano /|\
She only called him a nepo baby. So what’s the crisis?
A Hispanic women said it. Even Turley is pissed.
Many miss the basic elements of sociopathy present at all levels of society. Sociopaths are also tribalist. They objectify themselves and others, us vs them, I vs you, based on shallow perceptions of broad human elements applied to individuals without noting the individual human traits and life experience each has. She has made comments that reflect a tribalist-mentality.
Tribalist you say. Boy did come to the right website. Sociopaths abound here.
Your self perception and total lack of awareness is of a magnitude never before witnessed in real time.
Ooohhh, sounds like a old white man. And sociopath to boot. Self percept much?
“. . .sounds like an old white man”? If you are Caucasian, you will one day be an “old white man”. Guess you are non-white?
Sotomayor’s comments are familiar, in particular and in general, from left-leaning justices and judges. They love to work the moral high ground using what are commonly called “selected truths”. Yet, she is at home with a political party that specializes in corruption and disruption. Of course, this “wise Latina” will never apologize as she is fully locked in (and loaded) with her personal brand of elitism.
So only one justice is according to your schedule, a hyprocrite? Yet you willfully ignore other justices, like Thomas. Roberts, Alito. Point is, no man or woman is free of hypocrites. You too.
Well Professor, the Age of Rage has obviously infected the SCOTUS. With the addition of Judge Jackson, the Court has gone the way of the Senate…..
Let’s see if I have this right, she attacks him for being an economic elitist while bragging about her own racial and social elitism. Got it.
Let’s see if I got it, anon attacks a Hispanic woman for being elitist… while imposing his less than intelligent world view on a non-white woman. Got it.
Precisely, and she’s too blind to even see it
Just she? You old white boys kill me.
Anonymous 8:17AM- That’s a thought but then I remembers that you are clearly demented so I’ll just have to write off your ravings as cries for help. You know ER’s usually have psychologists and/or psychiatrists on call for people who come in spouting self destructive thoughts. You should make use of these community services. Quickly!
.Just to note, there is no anon at 8:17 GEB.
Excuse us, but your unbridled hate is worthy of medical attention. If anything is here is self destructive, it’s your comment. And why take out your hate and anger at an anonymous person? You’re anonymous. and you use it all the time here. And what happened to civility? Preach but not practice eh.
PS. Now post that comment again with your real name. And don’t forget to email Turley again.
GEB hit the 1 instead of the 3 in reference to the annony who said, “Just she? You old white boys kill me.” at 8:37 AM. Those of us with a functioning frontal cortex could see that.
Ano
PS. Now post that comment again with your real name. And don’t forget to email Turley again.
Coming from Ano…. posting a real name. LOL
Great choice of words oh dense one!
🤣
I hope ALL Supreme Court Justices are ELITE
The Democrats GIVE US THESE DEI MORONS incapable of actual thought!
A net worth of $5 mill puts the old broad into elite status I presume. Careful who you call morons. They’re SCOTUS justices, you? A raging anonymous commenter lacking introspection. And smarts.
There is a presumption in our judicial system that the judge will not matter. That each judge will apply the law equally and fairly. However, Sotomayor’s views (doubtless shared by Jackson) make it clear that a white male will not get a fair and equal hearing in front of a “wise Latina” judge like Sotomayor in a case involving a minority person on the other side. This makes a mockery of blindfolded justice. The left no longer even bothers to pretend the system is equitable. Leftists decided they don’t need to do so anymore.
Alright MAGAots, fresh meat this morning, show your stupidity and ignorance, show America how vile and evil conservatives are.
The parasitic juvenile is awake and crying to mommy for his breakfast.
Looks like you’re been stalking your juvenile parasite. Got pedo tendencies?
If thats your best shot its pathetic.
Best? Doesn’t need to be, yet you swallowed it whole. Choke well MAGAot.
Hullbobby playing anon this morning?
Pot calling the kettle black, I think.
Anonymous 7:46AM once again ATS looks in the mirror and is horrified at what he sees then realizes it’s himself.
On a roll today eh GEB. Let it out, go ahead scream… write comments, use the anon meme.
GEB,
And his parents are ever so ashamed at their little Gen Z failure to launch.