After telling an audience at Mount Vernon that “we saw the outpouring of voters in on Tuesday,” Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor told them that she hoped to see the reversal of various conservative opinions starting with the presidential immunity decision in Trump v. United States.
Speaking at the historic home of George Washington, Justice Sotomayor described her (presumably) conservative colleagues as doing some “crazy things.”
She observed that “There have been some systemic changes in my court’s jurisprudence in many areas of law,” Sotomayor said. “We’ll settle down, too. Not quite sure when. But we will. And a new order will be established that people will begin to understand.”
She then specifically turned to the court’s 6-3 decision along ideological lines that former presidents enjoy at least presumptive immunity for their official acts. In her dissent, Sotomayor portrayed the decision as bestowing imperial power, noting that it made President Trump and his successors a “king above the law.”
She told the crowd that “I dissent a lot. I’m hoping that the court will take back some of the crazy things that it’s done. I’m only joking — maybe not…No, seriously, You know, I’ve spoken openly about this, there’s some opinions that I hope in my lifetime will get overturned. The immunity case is one of them.”
As I discuss in my column on the Democratic effort to effectively nullify the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment, there is a series of changes being sought to impact the 2028 election. With Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito pushing 80, liberals could secure a majority in the next Administration without carrying out their plan to pack the Court.
If that happens, Justice Sotomayor appears ready to reverse a series of opinions that she deems “crazy” from her conservative justices.
Jonathan Turley is the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The immunity decision has zero basis in the Constitution and the Constitution has clauses that would refute immunity.
“. . . Democratic effort to effectively nullify the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment . . .” (JT)
Funny, isn’t it, how the Left (with its “compact”) has suddenly become a fan of states’ “rights.”
Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court can’t overturn it! It says what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court said so.
Trump v. United States. The Supreme Court has to overturn it. It does not say what the Constitution says. I don’t care what the Supreme Court said!
Congress can overturn wildly expansive Judicial interpretations of the Constitution, and of course, any prior statutory law. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 countermanded the 1856 Dred Scott decision. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 overturned 1884 Elk vs. Wilkins decision. Congress can overturn Trump v. Barbara.
We just have to elect Congresspeople who are comfortable putting activist plaintiffs and Judges in their proper place (subordinate in power to elected legislators).
What was Justice Ginsburg pushing?
Who could have possibly leaked the Dobbs opinion? Polygraphs for all!
I think the very fact that Sotomayor makes such an obviously and ridiculously biased political statement is proof positive that such will likely never occur. Given a politically minded supreme court the ability to charge a president would not only erase separation of powers, it would place the court above all, and the party through them.
I didn’t know that Courts brought charges.
if you vote Democrat
You hate America.
It is that simple
Who was it that said “never let anyone outside the family know what you’re thinking?“
Trump needs to claim immunity for himself, his family members and members of his staff right now,
I don’t think it matters much when he does it. Probably better that he does it sooner, than later. Congressional investigations don’t really mean anything unless you control the DOJ. No one actually gives testimony during show hearings, they take the 5th. Why would anyone ever incriminate themselves, especially to a body that has no power to prosecute? He will definitely give immunity deals before he leaves office.
Democrats are fascists
DEI is failure
Remove these failures
No one ever believed the the President didn’t have broad immunity for official acts. It’s just that no one ever felt the need to codify it. Who would ever take the job if there wasn’t? The only difference is that Trump’s enemies want the rules to be different for him. No one ever questioned a President’s ability to classify or declassify top secret material either. For what would seem to be obvious reason of, as the highest ranking military official in the country, who’s approval for doing so is a President supposed to obtain? Past Presidents have done it during press conferences without consequence. But for Trump, the rules are suddenly different.
Anonymous 7:53AM-well put. Besides the president is not totally immune. I think there is a little process called impeachment. She also fails to remember that it will also apply to Democratic Presidents and maybe even Supreme Court Justices. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”
Even impeachment has become something of a nothing burger. They’ve made it sort of meaningless. If the Dems want to burn whatever political capital they have on yet another impeachment, go for it. Lawfare was what elected Trump to a second term. They just couldn’t help themselves. Now removal from office would be something else, but they might want to think that one through a little more. The votes probably won’t be there and Vance takes over giving him two years to really screw them good. It would also consume the entire news cycle, unify republicans, and show Dems for what they truly are. For the left, Trump is the gift that keeps on giving, if they removed him, then what? No more crazy X posts?
GEB, after they take over, they will simply rewrite the rules. Easy peasy.
I ran both Claude and ChaTGpt through historical causes and processes of revolutionary actions then asked them to calculate the chance of a true revolution in the USA should the left pack the court. The results came back at over 90% that there would be a gorilla war dismantling the corruption in government.
As I sit on saQ of freedom seeds, holding my stiQ, it will come to blood. That’s all the other side knows. Buckle up. Somehow, every county in the nation turned blue, sure. Some say MAGA didn’t show up. Nearly the same amount of conservatives voted as the last cycle…. BUT, the blues had an ‘extra’ 20M new voters…. swallow that pill. Governors MUST not certify . full stop
11b
Pretend revolutionaries self-entertain by talking in code.
I would predict that either, a leftist President “packing” the supreme court with four new picks or a widespread move to ban firearms or cause possession to become a crime, would be the kick-off to that revolution. If either or both happened, it would be the obvious signal where things were heading.
Many are saying Conservatives/MAGA did not show up. Wrong, I’ll tell you who showed up, 20M [new] dimocrats… Pondering that as I sit on my sack of freedom seeds….
The remedy is easy, Governors MUST NOT certify fraudulent installations {some call them elections}
@txvet33
I think it was both, personally. The people that didn’t show up woefully underestimated the odds. Had everyone been front and center, it would have been tight. I also think the threats against younger voters who don’t know any better for supporting non-dems worked.
If such a case arose, given this public outburst, should she not recuse herself ?
No. Her opinion was already known from her dissent.