Sonia Quotamayor: Product of Affirmative Action.  Sonia the Quota, aka Sonia Quotamayor, proved what most people have known for years.  Affirmative action means hiring, appointing, or promoting people for the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.  Sotomayor is obviously not where she is because of her character or her qualifications.  Her own words prove that she is grossly unfit to serve in any responsible judicial capacity in an equal opportunity society. [...] Quotamayor's open endorsement of race discrimination comes as no surprise, because her basic competence as a jurist is open to serious question.  She thinks only the parts of the Bill of Rights she likes, as opposed to the entire Bill of Rights, applies to the states.

Sonia Sotomayor Exposes the Lie of an 'Apolitical' Supreme Court.  [Scroll down]  And just as all eyes have returned to the court, observers of all stripes have been presented with a timely reminder as to how the court's progressives view their jobs: to wit, as unabashed liberal partisans.  That reminder has now come courtesy of the current court's most far-left justice, Sonia Sotomayor.  It follows an entire career's worth of similar comments from Justice Sotomayor's former colleague, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  According to reporting from both CNN and the Washington Post, Sotomayor recently offered what can only be interpreted as a substantive public policy position on S.B. 8, Texas' recent anti-abortion fetal heartbeat law that has garnered much national attention.  That Sotomayor would now offer a forthright political opinion on the topic is hardly unexpected:  She dissented from the court's correct recent decision to deny Texas pro-abortion plaintiffs' emergency request to enjoin any enforcement of S.B. 8, lambasting the law at the time as "flagrantly unconstitutional."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor Faces Renewed Calls to Retire After Trump Win.  Following President-elect Donald Trump's victory, calls have resurfaced for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to retire to prevent Trump from potentially filling another court vacancy.  Sotomayor, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, is the first Latina and the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court.  At 70, she is the oldest Democrat-appointed justice on the Court which has a 6-3 conservative supermajority.  In light of Trump winning the 2024 presidential election over Vice President Kamala Harris, calls for Sotomayor to retire so that President Joe Biden, with support from a Democrat-majority Senate, would have enough time to appoint a new justice have recirculated on social media.

The Editor says...
Lame duck judicial appointments should be illegal — especially lifetime appointments.  The losing presidential candidate should not be allowed one last chance to throw a wrench into the machinery as he is ushered out the door.

Gun control for thee but not for me.  A U.S. marshal protecting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's home shot an armed man attempting to carjack him on Friday.  This instance is just one example of how guns used in self-defense can be vital for one's safety, especially in Washington, D.C. Coincidentally, Justice Sotomayor has a history of opposing the right to bear arms for self-defense.  The would-be carjacker approached the marshal's vehicle with a handgun.  While he pointed his weapon toward the driver's window, the marshal inside drew his firearm and shot the assailant.  A second U.S. marshal also opened fire on the carjacker.  The attacker was subsequently taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening wounds.  Washington has been suffering under a crime wave that has persisted since the pandemic.  The city had the fifth-highest homicide rate in 2023 and is on pace to have a higher death toll in 2024.  The arrest rate has been consistently low since before the pandemic, the police force is at a half-century low, and the legal system remains slow to prosecute.  This dangerous security situation means that personal defense is all the more important now in Washington DC.

US Marshal Shoots Wannabe Carjacker Outside Justice Sotomayor's DC Home.  Important safety tip for criminals:  Don't pull a gun on a United States Marshal.  That's the lesson learned on July 5th by one Kentrell Flowers, 18, who walked up to a vehicle containing not one but two U.S. Marshals and pulled a gun in what appears to have been an attempted carjacking.  The Marshals were parked outside of, and providing security for, the home of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  Flowers ended up being shot and later treated for non-life-threatening injuries. [...] It's also important to note that the District's municipal government bends every effort to prevent residents from arming themselves in self-defense against criminals; if there had been ordinary citizens in that car rather than United States Marshals, the carjacking would likely have been successful, and we would only know of it through another slight tick in the District's crime statistics — unless the event had escalated into one of the instances in which the crime victims are shot or otherwise injured.

Sotomayor's Dissent in Presidential Immunity Case Certainly Has People Talking.  On Monday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision of Trump v. United States that the office of the United States presidency has immunity from criminal prosecution.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also signed onto.  It's a dissent that has plenty of people talking over social media, with a common theme of the reaction being "[...]" to describe her ranting and raving.  "With fear for our democracy, I dissent," she wrote in what sounds like a line the Biden reelection will almost certainly take advantage of.  She also began her dissent in part by writing that "the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.  Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."  There's more to highlight in between those points, however.  [Tweet]  There's also been chatter over social media about a president being able to use Seal Team 6 to order the assassination of his political opponent.  That, it turns out, is because a Supreme Court justice herself brought it up.

Sotomayor proves yet again that she's a complete idiot.  [Tweet] Let me help her and all the clowns in the media.  If a president orders the assassination of a political rival, that is not part of his official duties.  He's not immune.  Even more, the hysterical examples, which would require the involvement of scores or more conspirators, including civil servants and military, are so insane that none of this should be taken seriously.  The Democrat Party, including their jurists, are hellbent on destroying the institutions of this constitutional republic.  They say Trump is Hitler, the majority justices are right-wing hacks, and Republicans who support Trump (or anyone else who stands in their way) are cultists, brain dead, white supremacists, etc.  Garland and Smith are disfiguring the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, as well as Judge Cannon, are doing their best to set things straight and place things back in the constitutional box.  It is Smith, a historically rogue and vile prosecutor, who deserves our contempt, along with his boss, Garland.  The January 6 case is a farce.  The documents case was utterly unnecessary.

Liberal Justice Sotomayor bemoans 'dismantling' of federal agency power as Supreme Court curbs SEC.  Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the Supreme Court's conservative majority of seizing power for itself as it curbs the authority of federal agencies in a series of rulings, including one Thursday that went against the Securities and Exchange Commission.  She said in a dissenting opinion that the ruling, which limits the SEC's ability to enforce securities laws, was part of a "disconcerting trend" in which the court has pared back the power of regulators.  She cited other recent decisions in which the court made it easier for presidents to fire the heads of independent agencies and limited the authority of in-house judges.  "Make no mistake, today's decision is a power grab," Sotomayor wrote.  She took the additional step of reading a summary of her dissent from the bench, something justices do when they are particularly upset with a decision.

The existential horror of Sonia Sotomayor's life on a conservative court.  It's tough being a wise Latina on the United States Supreme Court, especially when you must share your position with people who believe that their job is to interpret the Constitution and laws as written, not as you wish they were.  That was Sotomayor's message when she received an award at Harvard's Radcliffe Institute yesterday.  Sotomayor is an Obama appointee.  She may be wise, but her intelligence is open to question.  During COVID, when cases were coming before the Supreme Court about unconstitutional restrictions, Sotomayor wildly pushed back, claiming during oral argument that "we have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators." That was high-level misinformation.  That wasn't the only time Sotomayor wandered off the factual reservation.  During oral argument last month regarding Idaho's pro-life laws, Sotomayor insisted that there are states that prohibit abortions to save a mother's life.  This is wrong.  All states have exceptions for the life of the mother.  She's also wrong about the effect bump stocks have on a gun's firing ability — something that matters given that she's yearning to limit our Second Amendment rights.

'Unpacking' the Court:  Why the Left Wants Sotomayor Gone.  Ever since losing control of the Supreme Court to a nominally conservative majority, many of the same liberals who have brazenly called for "packing the court" are now just as brazenly seeking to unpack it.  If ever there was proof that the Left views the Supreme Court as just another legislative body to lobby for their agenda, it's their shameless efforts to pressure liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, 69, to retire before the presidential election in November so President Joe Biden can nominate a younger — and equally or more liberal — replacement.  According to a pair of March 27 articles in The Huffington Post and at AboveTheLaw.com, two leftist law professors are among the loudest voices calling for Sotomayor's resignation. "I would love to see Sotomayor retire," one of them, Lucas Powe Jr., a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said.  "I would love to trade her for a 50-year-old justice."

Dem Senator Turns Up the Heat On Justice Sotomayor to Retire.  A Democratic senator is turning up the heat on Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to step down while Democrats can select her replacement.  Speaking with NBC's Sahil Kapur for a story published Wednesday, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) made a veiled reference to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who ignored calls to step down for years during former President Barack Obama's tenure.  She passed away in 2020, with former President Donald Trump choosing her successor.  "I'm very respectful of Justice Sotomayor," Blumenthal told NBC.  "I have great admiration for her.  But I think she really has to weigh the competing factors.  We should learn a lesson.  And it's not like there's any mystery here about what the lesson should be.  The old saying — graveyards are full of indispensable people, ourselves in this body included."

Right Now Could Be the Safest Time for Sonia Sotomayor to Retire.  Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed and sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice in August 2009. That means this August will be her 15th year on the court.  But there's another landmark coming up before that, one that Josh Barro says ought to make Sotomayor and Democrats think carefully about retirement.  In June Sotomayor will turn 70.  Why does that matter?  As Barro points out, that's exactly how old Antonin Scalia was in 2006.  Had he resigned that year with 20 years on the court, a GOP president and a GOP controlled Senate could have replaced him with a younger conservative.  Instead, Scalia stuck around and, as we all know, in Feb. 2016 he died.  Barack Obama was president at the time but fortunately the GOP controlled the Senate so no moderate or liberal replacement for Scalia was confirmed.  Trump won the next election and Neil Gorsuch eventually took the seat held open for him by Mitch McConnell.  Something very similar happened to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Are the Long Knives Out for Justice Sotomayor From the Left?  Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the oldest Democrat-appointed justice on the court.  It is starting to look like Democrats are ready to give her the heave-ho to give President Biden another shot at putting a Democrat on the Supreme Court.  It sounds like Democrats are none too confident that their guy Joe will win re-election in November.  So, to head off another Trump nominee to the majority conservative court, Democrats hope that Sotomayor will take the hint and retire.  Will it happen?  Nah.  It's a lifetime appointment.  Why should she give that up at the age of 69?  She's young compared to other Democrats in top leadership positions in our government, including Joe Biden.  But in the meantime, there will be stories that place doubt on her ability to continue serving on the court.  Take the story that was published at HuffPost on Friday.  A new report states that Justice Sotomayor is the only justice to request a medic to accompany her when she travels.

Revealed: Ailing Justice Sonia Sotomayor Traveled with Medic, Needed "Medical Supplies" and "Medical Gear".  Trump was right.  Again.  Far-left Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is in really bad shape.  The 69-year-old justice is overweight and suffers from type 1 diabetes.  According to newly released US Marshals Service records, Sonia Sotomayor, the oldest left-leaning justice on the bench, traveled with a medic and needed "medical supplies," and "medical gear."  "Justice Sotomayor's health concerns are also apparent throughout the documents.  On a Feb. 2018 trip to south Florida with no public events, Sotomayor appears to have a medic from Grand Junction, Colo. accompanying her, and another is with her during an Oct. 2018 swing through Chicago and Nashville for book events.  Four of Sotomayor's 2021 trips mention "medical gear" or "medical supplies."

How The Supreme Court Made Sonia Sotomayor Millions.  On Saturday, August 8, 2009, in a wood-paneled room inside the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor became Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina on the nation's highest judicial body.  With her 82-year-old mother at her side, she raised her right hand and repeated the judicial oath, promising to "do equal right to the poor and to the rich."  She had been poor for much of her life, and thanks to her new position, was about to become fairly rich.  Sotomayor was worth around $750,000 at the time.  Now, she is worth an estimated $5 million.  Her position has brought her fame, and that fame has led to book deals, providing $3.8 million in earnings since she joined the court.

Supreme Court Justice's Net Worth Skyrockets Since Joining The Court: Report.  Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's net worth has skyrocketed ever since she became a member of the nation's highest court — which has led to criticism from experts.  Fox News reported that, according to financial disclosures, Sotomayor's wealth increased from being in the $15,001-$65,000 range in 2008 to being in the $1,600,000-$6,600,000 range in 2021.  Sotomayor was nominated by then-President Barack Obama to the Supreme Court in 2009.  A recent data analysis of her actions on the court found that she is the most partisan justice on the court.  The 69-year-old reportedly makes more than $25,000 per year teaching law schools in addition to her $285,400 salary from the court.  The Associated Press reported that the main reason that her wealth has surged is because of the books that she has written.

The 'wise Latina' is suddenly 'la millonaria Latina'.  Can Justice Sonia Sotomayor refer us to her investment counselor?  The wise Latina's finances have done rather well since joining SCOTUS.

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor's staff prodded colleges and libraries to buy her books.  For colleges and libraries seeking a boldfaced name for a guest lecturer, few come bigger than Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court justice who rose from poverty in the Bronx to the nation's highest court.  She has benefited, too — from schools' purchases of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of the books she has written over the years.  Sotomayor's staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children's books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009.  Details of those events, largely out of public view, were obtained by The Associated Press through more than 100 open records requests to public institutions.

The Muddled Mindset of Progressivism.  It's time we had a courageous conversation about the left's incoherent stance on big government and race.  This muddled mindset was on full display last week as two progressive Supreme Court justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, attacked the majority's decision rejecting affirmative action in higher education by crediting such race-based policies for progress while also claiming that nothing much has changed in our supposedly racist country.  "Today," Sotomayor declares in the second paragraph of her dissent, "this court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress."  Despite that grand advancement, she asserts just one sentence later that the majority was cementing "a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter."  Momentous progress in an endemically segregated nation?  Both Sotomayor and Jackson try to show how race continues to matter by drawing on the pessimistic historical determinism of critical race theory to argue that African Americans are still shackled by the original sin of slavery.

Liberal Supreme Court Justices Rely on False Claims about Racism, Anti-Gay Bigotry to Bolster Dissents.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a long dissent for 303 Creative v. Elenis, in which the court determined that a Christian web designer cannot be compelled to make a wedding website for a gay couple.  In her dissent, Sotomayor said a "social system of discrimination created an environment in which LGBT people were unsafe," and quoted many examples including the murder of Matthew Shepard, who was, "targeted by two men, tortured, tied to a buck fence, and left to die for who he was," Sotomayor wrote.  Shepard, who was involved in the Wyoming meth drug culture, was murdered by a bisexual who confirmed that the murder had nothing to do with Shepard's being gay.  Sotomayor's interpretation of Shepard's death is in line with the mainstream narrative that's coalesced around the incident.  That popular telling has inspired countless articles, a gay-rights non-profit, and, ultimately, the Matthew Shepard Act, a law signed by President Obama in 2009 that expanded the scope of offenses that could be considered hate crimes under federal law.  Sotomayor's version of events was eventually debunked by author Stephen Jiminez, who spent thirteen years reporting and writing a book about Shepard's death.

Liberal SCOTUS Justice Caught in Scandal That Blows up Recent Left-Wing Attacks.  [Scroll down]  That sound you hear is every Democrat who demanded Thomas and Gorsuch resign suddenly running away from any discussion of Supreme Court "ethics."  While the accusations against the conservative justices were silly and shallow, there is actual meat on the bone regarding what Sotomayor did.  The publishing company in question actually stood to lose money depending on how the court ruled, yet she took millions of dollars from it anyway and then didn't recuse herself from the case.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Caught in Scandal.  In recent weeks, Democrats have ramped up criticism of conservative Supreme Court justices like Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, alleging corruption and using that as a pretext for congressional oversight of the court. [...] While these incidents were much ado about nothing, the same Democrats who were calling for DOJ investigations and impeachments will no doubt sing a different tune over the revelation that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took $3.6 million from Penguin Random House publishing when the company did have business before the court, and declined to recuse herself.  In addition to the $3.6 million advance (which Penguin Random House lost money on), the Daily Wire found that Sotomayor received payments from the company annually from 2017 to 2021, totaling over $500,000.  In 2013, she voted in a decision regarding a case involving Random House despite then-fellow Justice Stephen Breyer recusing himself after receiving money from the publisher.  In 2020, Sotomayor received a $10,586 check from Penguin Random House on the same day a lawsuit against the publisher appeared before the Supreme Court.  The Court voted not to hear the case in February 2020, and Sotomayor received her largest-ever payment from the publisher in May of that year.

While we're talking SCOTUS ethics ... what about Sotomayor's?  Senate Democrats, led by Dick Durbin, seem obsessed these days with supposed appearances of impropriety by conservative Supreme Court justices.  Does that concern over the integrity of the court extend to its liberal wing — perhaps to its senior member taking in millions from a conglomerate with repeated cases before the court?  A justice who never bothered to recuse herself from them? [...] Sotomayor's defenders will push back on this by claiming that she at least disclosed those payments, while Clarence Thomas never disclosed his travel arrangements and other personal gifts from Harlan Crow.  That is a red herring, however.  In the first place, the disclosure rules for the Supreme Court didn't require Thomas to make those disclosures, although they do now.  In the second place, Crow didn't have business before the Supreme Court, so there was no conflict of interest at all.  To claim that Thomas is an equal or worse violator of ethics as Sotomayor is to invert the entire purpose of disclosure and ethics.

Liberal SCOTUS Justice Took $3M From Book Publisher, Didn't Recuse From Its Cases.  Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to recuse herself from multiple copyright infringement cases involving book publisher Penguin Random House despite having been paid millions by the firm for her books, making it by far her largest source of income, records show.  In 2010, she got a $1.2 million book advance from Knopf Doubleday Group, a part of the conglomerate.  In 2012, she reported receiving two advance payments from the publisher totaling $1.9 million.  In 2013, Sotomayor voted in a decision for whether the court should hear a case against the publisher called Aaron Greenspan v. Random House, despite then-fellow Justice Stephen Breyer recusing after also receiving money from the publisher.  Greenspan was a Harvard classmate of Mark Zuckerberg's who wrote a book about the founding of Facebook and contended that Random House rejected his book proposal and then awarded a deal to another author who copied his book and eventually turned it into the movie The Social Network.  In 2017, Sotomayor began receiving payments each year from Penguin Random House itself, which continued annually through at least 2021, the most recent disclosure available, and totaled more than $500,000.

Liberal SCOTUS Justice Caught in Scandal That Blows Up Recent Left-Wing Attacks.  There's one certainty in politics.  If a Democrat is accusing a Republican of doing something, it is the Democrat who is inevitably actually doing it.  That dynamic played out again Wednesday after a major revelation about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor called into question all the recent left-wing attacks on Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. [...] These attacks have been absolutely ridiculous, but that didn't stop Senate Democrats from calling a hearing to furiously wag their fingers.  Well, they are going to have to call another hearing because it's been revealed that Sotomayor took $3.6 million from a book company that did have business before the court at the time.

Dobbs was probably leaked by Sotomayor.  The Supreme Court decision last year in Dobbs v. Jackson overruled Roe v. Wade, their 1973 decision that purported to find an abortion right in a U.S. Constitution that never mentions or alludes to it.  Abortion is now rightly governed by the people's elected legislators, and, sadly, to some extent by unelected bureaucrats, but, in any event, not by judges.  The Dobbs decision was leaked a couple of months in advance of its issuance.  The effect of the leak was an outcry from abortion proponents, illegal protests at the homes of the conservative Justices, and an attempted assassination of one.  The leak was unprecedented in over two centuries of Supreme Court jurisprudence.  Chief Justice Roberts turned the matter over to the Court's marshal, a person not skilled in criminal law investigation.  Apparently unaided or little-aided by the unlimited resources of federal law enforcement, she concluded that there was no "preponderance of evidence" to name the leaker.

There Is No 'Expert' Clause in the U.S. Constitution.  [Scroll down]  There is no provision within the United States Constitution that accords unlimited power to bureaucrats simply because some people consider them to be well-credentialed.  As for Sotomayor's suggestion that, by superintending this statutory matter, the Court is taking it upon itself to set policy, "instead of leaving that decision in the hands of the person who has experience with these questions," that too is absolute rot.

Is Justice Sonia Sotomayor about to be pushed off the Supreme Court?  Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is recognized for three things:  (1) She was the first Hispanic female justice on the Court;  (2) She's a leftist's leftist; and  (3) she is not wise but is, in my humble opinion, almost staggeringly ignorant and biased.  All those factors benefit Democrats, but now they're getting worried, not because of her manifest legal and intellectual deficits but because there's a possibility that they will not hold the White House and Senate after the 2024 election.  Barack Obama nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in 2009, following her eleven-year stint as a Clinton appointee on the Second Circuit.  Of Puerto Rican heritage, she has the Ivy League credentials that mean so much to Democrats.  She graduated from Princeton with a summa cum laude degree in history (the focus of which was apparently entirely on Hispanic studies).  She admits that she got in because of affirmative action.

Supreme Court Affirms Kentucky AG's Right to Defend Law Banning Live-Dismemberment Abortion.  In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R) can defend the commonwealth's law banning live-dismemberment abortion, despite Gov. Andrew Beshear's (D) refusal.  The decision authored by Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito overturned a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that barred Cameron's office from intervening in the case.  Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the sole dissenter.

The worst problems with our best judges and doctors.  Last month, Supreme Court justice Sonya Sotomayor was criticized for seriously misstating figures to push Biden vaccine mandates:  100,000 children were seriously ill, with "many on ventilators."  The exaggerated figures underscored an embarrassing setback for the Biden administration.  Corporate media, rightfully, pointed out that Sotomayor's claims were egregious.  Even the Washington Post weighed in, giving the Justice "four Pinocchios" for her false statements.

Supreme Court Rejects Effort to Block Vaccine Mandate for NYC Schoolteachers Without Religious Exemptions.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday denied a request to block the city's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees of the New York City Department of Education who were not given a religious exemption.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles cases from the region, denied the emergency injunction filed by a group of public school teachers, supervisors, and staff employed by the New York City Department of Education (DOE), the largest public school district in the country.  Her latest ruling comes the same day as the deadline for the teachers as well as other New York City public workers, firefighters, and police officers to get their COVID-19 vaccinations.  Those who do not have proof of vaccination will likely be fired or put on unpaid leave.

Does Sotomayor Not Trust The Science?  Throughout the pandemic, our ruling class has demanded that the vast majority take unprecedented steps to protect the minute minority.  Kids have been asked to sacrifice their academic growth and emotional wellbeing so that teachers unions could collect dues while their members cowered behind screens. [...] Each day, one hopes that this mindset is reverting back to a conventional and commonsensical norm.  Reporting from NPR tried to claim that Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch declined to "wear a mask out of respect" for his overweight, diabetic, and unhealthy colleague Sonia Sotomayor at her request.  It turns out that NPR's Nina Totenberg pushed more fake news in an attempt to smear one of the few conservative thinkers on the nominally conservative-leaning Supreme Court.  Still, though, Gorsuch is indeed going maskless while hearing oral arguments.  At the same time, Sotomayor is listening virtually from her chambers.

Will Twitter suspend Sotomayor for COVID misinformation?  A wise axiom warns us not to deduce Supreme Court decisions based on the questions asked by its justices during oral arguments.  Perhaps, however, we can deduce their relative wisdom and grasp of reality from the questions they pose.  In today's debate over the legality of the Biden administration's vaccine mandates imposed by OSHA, a few of the justices appear to have little grasp of the current facts of the pandemic.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the way on misinformation.  Sotomayor was hardly alone in causing jaws to drop, but she was the clear leader.  The transcript isn't yet available, but observers shared their amazement on Twitter.

Justice Sotomayor phones it in.  Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor may want people to think of her as a "wise Latina," but she displayed very little wisdom throughout the court's oral argument in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor on Friday.  Multiple fact-checkers have already slammed Sotomayor for falsely asserting, "We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators."  But that was far from her only mistake.  On the 100,000 children claim, not only was this not even remotely true when she said it — according to the Department of Health and Human Services, there are fewer than 5,000 children with COVID-19 hospitalized right now — but over the course of the entire pandemic, only 83,000 children have been hospitalized for any reason.  This includes asymptomatic children in the hospital admitted for a broken leg who happened to test positive for COVID while they were treated.  The reality is that from the beginning, almost everyone has recognized that children face much lower risks of severe illness and hospitalization from COVID-19 than older adults and those with comorbidities.

Emerging uses of "emergency".  [Scroll down]  Justice Sotomayor puts it this way (transcript at page 29): "Why isn't the human being like a machine if it's spewing a virus, blood-borne [sic] viruses?"  Justice Sotomayor isn't completely worthless.  She is good for comic relief as we slide down the slippery slope.  Justice Sotomayor sagely observes, for example (transcript at pages 53-54):  "[C]ounsel, those numbers show that Omicron is as deadly and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as Delta did....  We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in — in serious condition and many on ventilators."  Often wrong, but never in doubt.  If things don't work out for her on the Court, a brilliant career beckons at MSNBC.

Sonia Sotomayor roasted after spreading false information about child COVID hospitalizations.  Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor came under withering criticism Friday after she falsely suggested that upwards of 100,000 children in the United States are hospitalized from COVID-19, many of them on ventilators.  During oral arguments on the Biden administration's mandate on private businesses for employees to be either vaccinated or frequently tested, Sotomayor drastically overstated the number of young people who have fallen severely ill from coronavirus.  "We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators.  We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition, many on ventilators," she said.

Rand Paul: 'Is Fauci Advising Justice Sotomayor?'.  Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) asked if Dr. Anthony Fauci is "advising" Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor after she touted falsehoods during oral arguments on Friday at the Supreme Court as justices weighed President Joe Biden's coercive vaccine mandates.  "We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition, many on ventilators" from the coronavirus, Sotomayor asserted on Friday, raising eyebrows.  After the remarks surfaced, Sen. Paul, a prominent critic of Anthony Fauci, tweeted:  "Sotomayor: 'over 100,000 children... in serious condition, many on ventilators' Is Fauci advising Justice Sotomayor?  Will YouTube censor her?"

Supreme disgrace.  January 7, 2022 saw panic porn-riddled disinformation peddled by Supreme Court Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan during the OSHA and CMS vaccine mandate arguments.  You can read about it [elsewhere].  I unplugged from the livestream, disturbed by their commentary, believing it revealed deeper cracks in our republic's foundation than those supposedly from January 6th.  Justice Kagan challenged claims that OSHA's vaccine mandate exceeded its narrow emergency powers by arguing that nothing could be more necessary than protecting people in the workplace from Covid.  Self-righteous and didactic, her opening salvo was riddled with superlatives, hyperbole, and "we all know what's best-isms," a tactic that forces the opposition either to defend itself with facts to rebut hers or forego that defense and carry on with their arguments.

Liberal Supreme Court justices spread COVID-19 misinformation.  Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor confirmed during Friday's oral arguments that they are firmly in favor of President Joe Biden's private sector vaccine mandate.  However, the facts they relied upon to make their case were flat-out wrong.  Kagan began by claiming "the best way" to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is "for people to get vaccinated," and the "second best way" is to "wear masks."  Neither claim is true.  While the vaccines appear to slow the spread of COVID-19 and reduce the chance of death, there is absolutely no evidence that they prevent transmission, especially not against the much more contagious omicron variant.

Justice Sotomayor 'paraded her scientific ignorance' in questioning during oral arguments on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health.  Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, raised eyebrows and cast doubt on her fitness for her elevated office during oral arguments over the pending Mississippi abortion case, Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health.

A Science Lesson for Justice Sotomayor.  [Scroll down]  In a piqued, incredulous tone, Sotomayor demanded to know just "What are the advancements in medicine?"  As Stewart began to list them, mentioning new knowledge of fetal pain, the Justice abruptly cut him off.  Our brief and others document the medical and scientific advances Mr. Stewart was referring to, in language easily accessible to lay people and rigorously sourced in the latest scientific journals and currently accepted medical practices.  It's there for anyone with eyes — or the will — to see.  Sotomayor vigorously rejected Stewart's reference to advances in our understanding of fetal pain.  She claimed that only an eccentric "small fringe" believes fetal pain exists "before 24, 25 weeks."  She could not have been more wrong.  A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that a fully developed cortex is not necessary for the transmission of pain sensations, which may be present as early as 12 weeks.

Sotomayor's intellectual limitations [are] on display in the oral arguments over Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health.  For anyone paying attention to the abortion rights case just argued before the Supreme Court, it would be hard to miss the deep emotional passion of Justice Sotomayor in defense of Roe v. Wade.  The justices heard arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health over a Mississippi law that prohibits termination of pregnancies after 15 weeks.  Lower courts have found the ban plainly unconstitutional due to the half century of legal precedent since Roe and put it on hold.  While hardly alone in her knee-jerk attachment to the faux constitutionality of Roe, neither she nor the other liberals on the Court can address any relevant text in the Constitution that supports that 1973 decision.  That would be because there isn't any.  All that clever stuff about emanations and penumbras was wholly without constitutional basis.  Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are running intellectual rings around the "it-was-written-by old-white men" anti-Constitutionalists. [...] Does she [Sotomayor] actually think that the court's decision on Roe in 1973 was not political?  Can she be that dim?  Yes, she can and is.

What's that you smell in the Supreme Court?  In Wednesday's [12/1/2021] Supreme Court oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Justice Sonia Sotomayor got a whiff of something she did not like.  She said many abortion opponents, including the sponsors of the Mississippi abortion law at issue, hoped her three new colleagues would allow for the reversal or reduction of Roe v. Wade.  With Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett listening, she asked, "Will this institution survive the stench" created from such political machinations — and then answered:  "I don't see how it is possible."  Of course, when justices begin to declare their disgust at the very thought of overturning precedent, there is another detectable scent in the courtroom. [...] Justices Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer insisted that overturning Roe in whole or in part would bring ruin upon the court by abandoning the principle of stare decisis, or the respect for precedent.  Yet neither showed the same unflagging adherence to precedent when they sought to overturn conservative doctrines.

Doctor Slams Sotomayor:  "To Compare an Unborn Child to a Brain-Dead Person is Wholly Ignorant".  Doctors and scientists corrected U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor this week after she compared unborn babies to brain dead people and claimed they cannot feel pain until at least 24 weeks of pregnancy.  Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, a radiology specialist and senior fellow with The Catholic Association, said the justice's statements were "wholly ignorant" of basic scientific knowledge.  "To compare an unborn child to a brain-dead person or a corpse flouts science, which tells us that at 15 weeks gestation, a baby's organs are fully formed, her heart pumps 26 quarts of blood a day, and her lungs are already practicing drawing breath," Christie responded in a statement.

Sotomayor Calls on Law Students to Oppose the Texas Abortion Law.  Modern justices have long chafed at the restraints of judicial ethical rules about public commentary.  The late Ruth Bader Ginsburg was celebrated as "notorious" due in part to her controversial public speeches and discussions of pending or expected cases before the Court.  Despite my long criticism of this trend, I was still taken aback by comments of Justice Sonia Sotomayor at an event organized by the American Bar Association.  In her comments, Sotomayor appeared to call for political campaigns and discussed a matter just before the Court.  Despite the discussion of the case and political opposition from a sitting justice, the ABA members were silent as were the many liberal activists who have been denouncing the Court as too "political."  I admittedly hold a more traditional and cloistered view of public role of justices.  I was particularly critical of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ginsburg who relished appearances before ideologically supportive groups.  Other justices like Justice Samuel Alito also crossed this line of judicial decorum and restraint in my view.  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."

Low-Wattage Justice Sotomayor's Attack on the Bill of Rights Makes Her the Left's New Supreme Court Bobblehead.  Yesterday evening [11/25/2020] the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, defended the Constitution's Bill of Rights against a concerted attack by one of the three most totalitarian governors in the United States, New York's Andrew Cuomo.  Cuomo had decreed that the size of religious services could be arbitrarily limited to as few as 10 people.  Ostensibly, this was to protect us all from the dreaded Chinese Lung AIDS because, as we all know, that virus hates people who go to church and hangs out in the church parking lot to attack those who attend.  This is much like how the virus loves to visit bars and restaurants after 9 p.m. and how it also targets Thanksgiving meals.  For reasons unknown to scientists, the virus is afraid to get close to BLM or Antifa demonstrations, though it is very, very attracted to demonstrations defending Constitutional rights.  How very odd.  It is almost like the scientists are just making up [stuff] to target gatherings they personally oppose or push policies they approve of.

Justice Sotomayor Upbraids SCOTUS Majority for 'Playing a Deadly Game' With COVID Restrictions.  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a stinging rebuke of her conservative colleagues, calling out what she perceived as hypocrisy and false equivalencies in Wednesday's ruling against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's COVID-19 restrictions.  In a 5-4 decision, the court's conservative block of justices granted a temporary injunction requested by a Catholic Diocese and two Orthodox Jewish synagogues.  By so doing, the court narrowly held that Cuomo's regulations limiting attendance at religious services likely violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  It was the court's first major decision since the staunchly conservative Justice Amy Coney Barret joined the bench.  Sotomayor was having none of it.

Sotomayor Goes After Unethical Prosecutors and Conservative Judges on First Day of New SCOTUS Term.  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor began the October term with two opinions related to orders which offer some telling insights into the progressive jurist's legal philosophy.  Neither of Sotomayor's opinions carry the force of law and are properly understood as judicial musings about the high court's potential and more abstract notions of what justice means and/or could be in the future.  In each case, the full court declined to hear the case at issue and in each case, the justice agreed with her peers but took the opportunity to elaborate on her own decision-making processes as well as pitfalls contained in the lower court records.

Cruz Scorches Sotomayor over Trump Critique.  [Scroll down]  Restraining activist judges who apply ideology over law on a scope outside the jurisdiction of the cases at hand is not "extraordinary" relief.  It is welcome relief and reflects President Trump's reshaping of the federal courts, a work in process, and restoring them to their originalist origins and interpretations, written in an era when the Constitution meant what the Founders wrote in the context of their times, not what a "wise Latina' in touch with her life experience and feelings might say it means, colored by the passions of the day.  Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a "Trump judge" according to Sotomayor, condemned activist judges exceeding the scope of their legal authority in a January concurrence.  Gorsuch scolded lower courts that have routinely issued blanket injunctions against the Trump administration, rather than limiting themselves to the parties before them.

Ted Cruz Takes a Sledgehammer to Sotomayor's Dissent and Comes Up with a Fitting Metaphor.  Earlier, I posted about President Trump's call for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to recuse herself from any future cases involving his administration after reading the scathing dissent she wrote last Friday.  She accused her colleagues of bias and the federal government of seeking stays "in an unprecedented cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources by claiming one emergency after another."  In a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting today, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) destroyed Sotomayor's dissent in two minutes and even came up with an appropriate, and quite creative, metaphor.

Cruz scorches Sotomayor over court critique, turns tables on her dissent.  Republican Sen. Ted Cruz on Tuesday tore into Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a widely noticed dissent in which she blasted her colleagues for lifting injunctions on controversial Trump administration policies.  During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the use of nationwide injunctions — which stop policies from taking effect — Cruz cast the blame on liberal jurists for what he described as an abnormal number of these measures against the Trump administration in the first place.  He accused judges of acting as "partisan political activists."  This, he argued, has reasonably resulted in the government fighting back.

President Trump Calls on Sotomayor and Ginsburg to Recuse Themselves From His Supreme Court Cases.  President Trump responded from India via Twitter on Tuesday local time to a scathing dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor released Friday [2/21/2020] that accused the conservative majority justices on the Supreme Court of being biased in favor of the Trump administration.  Trump called on Sotomayor and her fellow Trump-hating Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from cases involving or relating to him.

Tom Cotton:  Sonia Sotomayor Falsely Accused GOP-Appointed Justices of Doing What Democrat-Appointed Judges Do.  Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor projected when she accused her Republican-appointed peers of acquiescence to the Trump administration, said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) in an interview on Breitbart News Sunday [...] Sotomayor dissented in the Supreme court's 5-4 decision in Wolf v. Cook County, upholding the federal government's authority to restrict immigration from foreigners who would become financial burdens on taxpayers as "public charges."

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor rages that colleagues are conservative.  Supreme Court Justice Sonia "Wise Latina" Sotomayor once was explicit that she values feelings over the law.  She is discovering to her chagrin that this approach does not work when a majority of Justices believe in the Constitution.  On Friday, her frustration erupted in an angry dissent attacking her colleagues for partisanship.  In 2009, Sotomayor gave a speech trumpeting life experience rather than the Constitution and the law as her guiding judicial principles: [...] Sotomayor disavowed the speech during her nomination hearing.  Nevertheless, her a navel-gazing analysis was at the forefront when she wrote a dissent accusing her strict constructionist Supreme Court colleagues of improperly favoring the Trump administration.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor:  Supreme Court 'putting a thumb on the scale' for Trump.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she is concerned the Supreme Court is going out of its way to help the Trump administration.  The high court voted along ideological lines on Friday to grant the Trump administration's demand for an emergency request to stay an injunction in an Illinois case regarding the restriction of low-income immigrants from entering the United States.

'Wise Latina' Sotomayor heaps praise on San Francisco's new far-left DA, Chesa Boudin.  San Francisco, whether it knows it or not, should be bracing to get even more crime-ridden and hellish than it already is with the questionably rigged election of Chesa Boudin as the city's chief prosecutor.  Boudin, recall, vows to ignore quality-of life crimes; drop gang enhancement charges on gangsters; and pressure victims of violent crimes to opt for "restorative justice" instead of jail time, letting crooks off if they apologize.  What could go wrong?  Not a problem for Wise Latina herself, Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor, who horned in on Boudin's inauguration, sending this far-to-the-far-leftist an unprecedented message of pride and praise: [...]

Justice Sotomayor:  Hispanics have 'rational fear' of Trump administration citizenship question.  Hispanics have "legitimate fear" of the Trump administration and its quest to query Americans about their citizenship on the 2020 Census, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday, as the Supreme Court debated whether President Trump has the power to add the question back in to the decennial count.  The government's lawyer, Solicitor General Noel Francisco, was less than two sentences into his argument when Justice Sotomayor pounced for the first time, keeping up a steady stream of questions suggesting Mr. Trump and his team invented reasons to ask about citizenship, and that Hispanics, in particular, will refuse to take part, souring the all-important survey.  "Are you suggesting they don't have, whether it is rational or not, that they don't have a legitimate fear?" Justice Sotomayor demanded.

The Democrats and SCOTUS: The Real Record.  Sonja Sotomayor was nominated to the SCOTUS in 2009 by a Democrat president (Obama).  Sotomayor, who riled conservatives by repeatedly claiming that a "wise Latina" would make better conclusions than a "white male", was approved via Senate Vote 262 a 68-31 bipartisan vote that saw twenty three percent of senate Republicans voting "yes."

Sonia Sotomayor saddened by perception of judges as political.  Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor bemoaned people losing confidence in judges they believe to be political while taking questions at the University of California, Berkley on Thursday.  Sotomayor urged the crowd, "[D]on't give up hope on us" and said judges are "human beings who care deeply about what we're doing," according to the Associated Press.  The justice also said since the late Justice Antonin Scalia's death that the eight remaining justices are "talking more" and "trying to reach consensus more."

Sonia Sotomayor Cites Ta-Nehisi Coates in a Supreme Court Dissent.  Race is everything for the "wise Latina."  The media have widely praised Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in Utah v. Strieff.  Even though she is derided as one of the worst writers on the bench, even by her ideological comrades, headlines describe the dissent as "stinging" (New York Daily News), "ringing" (Atlantic), "fierce" (Washington Post), "fiery" (CNN), "epic" (Nation), "blistering" (NPR), "biting" (Christian Science Monitor), and "scathing" (NBC).  In particular, they praise the dissent for bravely taking on racial injustice in America.  Slate called it an "atomic bomb of a dissent slamming racial profiling and mass imprisonment."  Mother Jones lauded the "court's only Latina justice" for putting "her life experience to practice" and "excoriating her colleagues for misunderstanding the police harassment to which people of color are regularly subjected."  The Atlantic wrote that "few institutions in American life have grappled with race and racism like the U.S. Supreme Court, for better or worse, but rarely does it speak about it with this level of detail."  It went on to suggest that the dissent may be a "veiled nod to the Black Lives Matter movement."  The nod is barely veiled.

The Court Loon.  The madmen and lunatics get all the attention, but history is littered with examples of mediocrities managing to thread the needle somehow, ending up on top, only to be undone by their own stupidity.  In my lifetime, Jimmy Carter is the most obvious example. [...] The point is, life is big and complicated with lots of variables.  Under the right conditions, the dice can land the wrong way and we end up with a lunatic on the Supreme Court, which is why we have an impeachment system.  If a nut winds up in the White House or on the bench, they can be removed.  It does not happen often, but it's a remedy, just in case we end up with someone like, say, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. [...] . Obama nominated this woman because she was a Latin lesbian.  Finding someone who checks those boxes and is competent in the law is impossible so he just took a loyal fanatic.  The result is we have a mentally disturbed woman on the high court — for life.

Justice Sotomayor's Troubling View of the Law.  The Supreme Court is in the news again this week after a bitter disagreement over civil liberties.  Yesterday [6/21/2016], in a 5-3 decision, the majority of justices came down squarely on the side of the state, but it was Sonia Sotomayor's rousing dissent that captured the public's attention.  She wrote vividly, addressing readers in the second person:  "You are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged."  She cited works such as James Baldwin's The Fire Next Time and Ta-Nehisi Coates's Between the World and Me from the civil-rights canon.

Sotomayor in fiery dissent:  Illegal stops 'corrode all our civil liberties'.  Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Monday [6/20/2016] issued a vehement dissent in a Fourth Amendment case — writing that the majority's opinion sanctions police stops that "corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives."  The fiery objection came on case where a Utah man challenged his arrest based on a stop that was later found to be unlawful.  The 5-3 majority opinion, Sotomayor wrote, will have dramatic ramifications for law-abiding citizens targeted by police, especially minorities.

Sotomayor Dissent Reads Like 'A Black Lives Matter Manifesto'.  [Scroll down]  Sotomayor filed a peppery dissent, joined in part by Justice Ginsburg.  "The white defendant in this case shows that anyone's dignity can be violated in this manner," she wrote.  "But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.  For generations, black and brown parents have given their children 'the talk' — instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger — all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them."  "We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are 'isolated,'" she continued.  "They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere."  Elsewhere in the dissent, she characterizes the United States as a "carceral state," and pillories the "civil death" endured by those subject to arrest, a process she describes in vivid terms.  She also accused the Court of treating minority communities as "second class citizens."  The dissent's citations are as interesting as the text itself, which read like a survey of the American black literary tradition.

Sotomayor wants more diversity on court, after Obama picks Garland, a white Ivy male.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor says the Supreme Court needs more diversity, amid the politically charged debate about filling a vacancy on the high court.  "I ... think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school," Sotomayor, the court's first Latina justice, said Friday [4/8/2016] at Brooklyn Law School.  However, she did not mention by name Judge Merrick Garland, a white male with a Harvard Law School degree whom President Obama recently nominated to fill the vacancy of Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative voice on the court.  Scalia died unexpectedly in January.

Sotomayor's 4th Amendment Time Bomb.  A painfully slim 5 — 4 ruling this week by the Supreme Court in City of Los Angeles v. Patel [...] struck down a Los Angeles ordinance that allowed police officers to inspect hotel guest registries for any or even no reason, and without a warrant.  The ruling that the Fourth Amendment applies to businesses and that statutes may be declared unconstitutional on their face is consistent with principles as old as, and even older than, the Constitution.  Privacy advocates seem to be suffering from a bit of Stockholm Syndrome.  Joyful about the court's barely holding the line on two issues, most have yet to acknowledge how Justice Sonya Sotomayor's majority opinion is also a blueprint for a major power grab for the administrative police state.

Sotomayor Fears Drones Yet Votes To Strip Citizenry Of Ability To Combat Tyranny.  I wonder if the fog of liberalism is finally lifting from the eyes of Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor or if she is just ignorantly hypocritical as most liberals seem to be.  Speaking before a group of students and faculty at Oklahoma City University's School of Law on Thursday [9/11/2014], Justice Sotomayor railed against the increasing intrusion into our privacy during this "frightening" age of surveillance technology.  She made a specific point about the use of drones by both public and commercial entities to encroach on our private lives.

Liberals Understand The Constitution Like Justin Bieber Understands Particle Physics.  Based upon Justice Sotomayor's bizarre dissenting opinion in the recent Michigan affirmative action case, it seems she believes that government decisions made on the basis of race, something the Constitution expressly bars, are mandatory. [...] It ought to be called the "Ratchet Doctrine."  You are free to make things more liberal to your bleeding heart's content.  You just can't ever undo them.  It's right there in the Constitution.  Somewhere.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor proves herself not so wise.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor this week took the unusual step of reading her dissent in a case involving state-sponsored affirmative action in Michigan.  In doing so, she showed herself not only petulant to be on the losing side in a 6-2 decision, but unable to divorce her legal reasoning from her own sense of racial grievance.  It was an embarrassing but predictable performance.  In 2009, I was one of a handful of witnesses who testified against Sotomayor's confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  I did so with sadness, because there is much to admire in Sotomayor's personal history.

Justice Sotomayor and the affirmative action bitter-enders have lost bigtime.  There is a growing body of experience indicating that the phenomenon known as "mismatch" results in minorities being placed in situations where they cannot compete with the more-qualified students who received no such preferences.  The results have been high drop-out rates, leaving failed students worse off than if they had been admitted to institutions where their qualifications were similar to those of other students.  This is precisely what has happened with the end of racial preferences in California following the passage of Proposition 209.

The 'Wise Latina jumped the shark.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor jumped the shark Tuesday with her lengthy dissent from the Schuette decision, read aloud from the bench.  Although the liberal media sympathize with her and presented the decision as a setback, the positions she took are at variance with both the clear meaning of the text of the Constitution and with the sentiments of the vast majority of Americans, who consistently vote against racial preferences whenever they get the chance.

Sotomayor's autobiography whitewashes radical college years.  Instead of the familiar "tell-all" book, Sotomayor apparently wrote a "tell-all-she-wants-us-to-know" book leaving out key experiences during her college years.  To be clear, she wrote in great lengths about her time at Princeton University, but her association with openly racist organizations and other left-wing fringe movements are conveniently absent.

Supreme Court won't block Obama health law's contraception mandate.  The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to block the Obama administration's contraception mandate from taking effect.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected a request for an emergency injunction that would have shielded employers from the mandate.

A Cheap Shot From Sotomayor.  The opposition Sotomayor received on Capitol Hill was on account of her judicial philosophy and her rulings, not because of her Latina heritage, and she knows it.

Sotomayor says she's no Democrat, eager to show her independence on court.  Sonia Sotomayor appeared on "The Colbert Report" Monday night [2/4/2013] to talk about her new memoir, "My Beloved World," but she stumbled upon an interesting confession in the process:  She claims to be an independent.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor nets over $3 million from memoir.  Being a Supreme Court justice has not only been good for Sonia Sotomayor's legal career, it's also helped her bank account.  The justice on Friday [6/7/2013] reported that she's received more than $3 million in advance payments for her best-selling memoir, "My Beloved World."  Her annual financial disclosure forms show that Knopf Doubleday Group paid Sotomayor $1.925 million in 2012 in anticipation of her book.  This comes in addition to the $1.2 million in advance payments she received from the publisher in 2010.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor Stops Same-Sex Marriages In Kansas For Now.  Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, in a filing with Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has asked the Supreme Court to stop same-sex couples from being able to marry after 5 p.m. CT Tuesday [11/11/2014].  After the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the state's request for a stay last week, Schmidt had said he would be asking for a stay from Sotomayor — who hears procedural requests like this from the 10th Circuit.

Justice Sotomayor Tips Her Hand In DAPA Case Arguments.  Those who got up extra early to get in line at the Supreme Court on Monday [4/18/2016] got to hear oral arguments for the biggest case of the court's term:  The Texas-led multi-state challenge against President Obama's legacy-defining 2014 amnesty.  Predictions that the eight-member panel will be split right down the middle with the program being kept frozen (but without a nation-wide precedent being created) went unfazed.  Also predictable was the standout performance of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first justice to use the euphemism "undocumented immigrant" in a court opinion.  A former member of pro-amnesty organizations LatinoJustice and the National Council of La Raza, Sotomayor's unusually numerous questions to counsel were filled with all the wafer-thin precedents and stock factoids so frequently offered up by the open-borders lobby.  Clearly, she knows this territory well.

Sonia Sotomayor wants Religious Litmus Test!  If one Supreme Court Justice gets her way, there will be a religious test for the next SCOTUS nominee... as well as the standard abortion litmus test!  Not happy with the proposed nominee offered by President Obama, Sonia Sotomayor offered her faith-based suggestions:  [Video clip]

Justice Sotomayor Told a Huge Whopper About Kids and COVID.  The liberal wing of the Supreme Court embarrassed itself Friday [1/7/2022] with a slew of false claims about COVID-19 during oral arguments over Joe Biden's vaccine mandates.  For example, Justice Stephen Breyer claimed hospitals are at capacity because of unvaccinated Americans with COVID.  This is false.  But perhaps the most ridiculous false claim from a Supreme Court justice came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who falsely claimed that 100,000 children are in "serious condition" from COVID.  "We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators.  We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators," Sotomayor claimed.  This false claim can be easily fact-checked thanks to data from the Department of Health and Human Services, which says that the current number of confirmed pediatric hospitalizations with COVID in the United States is 3,342.  Those are hospitalizations with COVID, not from COVID.

Despite Sotamayor's Absurd Lack Of Covid-19 Knowledge, USSC Seems Skeptical Of Biden Vaccine Mandates.  Aside from the utter lack of basic knowledge of Covid-19 exhibited by some of the USSC Justices, the court seemed skeptical of the Biden administration's claim that it has the authority to force vaccine mandates on over 84 million private sector employees.

Leftist Supreme Court justices are trying to legislate their ignorance.  After reading about Friday's Supreme Court hearing the power of federal agencies to impose far-reaching vaccine mandates, a friend asked me how Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor could be so completely ignorant about COVID.  The snarky answer was that the "Wise Latina" was drawing on her inner wisdom, obviating the need for facts.  However, given that Justices Breyer and Kagan were just as ill-informed, and all three were pushing to define public policy rather than analyze the Constitution, the accurate answer is that leftist Supreme Court justices care nothing about the law.  They view themselves as an unelected legislature and are guided by their personal fears.

Even SCOTUS leftists have to lie to further the left's Wuhan virus narrative.  Make no mistake about it, leftists lie.  This is especially true of leftists in politics and the media.  In fact, on most any matter dear to the left's perverse agenda, one is safer assuming that the leftist you're hearing or reading is lying.  Thus, almost no one should've been surprised at the wild (and numerous) lies hurled by Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor during oral arguments over the Biden Administration's private sector Wuhan Virus vaccine mandate.  Early in the hearing, Justice Kagan called the Wuhan Virus "the greatest public health danger that this country has faced in the last century."  She added, "More and more people are dying every day.  More and more people are getting sick every day.  I don't mean to be dramatic here.  I'm just sort of stating facts."  I suppose "sort of stating facts" is like "sort of telling the truth," [...] Of course, Kagan's statements here are premised on the notion that we can even trust the U.S. Wuhan Virus numbers — we can't.

Justice Kagan's Rhetoric Diminishes the Court.  In the case of Brnovich v.  DNC decided last week, the Supreme Court wrestled with whether Arizona's laws against ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct voting are permissible under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  Given the political nature of the dispute, a naïve Court observer might assume that the justices would be especially careful to limit their analysis to the relevant text and case history, avoiding any hint of personal investment in the outcome.  The naïve observer is not familiar with Justice Elena Kagan.  Her dissent establishes from the outset her emotional commitment to the Voting Rights Act.  "If a single statute represents the best of America, it is the Voting Rights Act," she gushes.  It is "a monument to America's greatness," "an extraordinary law," a "crucial tool," a statute that has "done more to advance the Nation's highest ideals" than any other.

Justice Kagan is Concerned About the Supreme Court's 'Legitimacy'if Kavanaugh is Confirmed.  While, in theory, the Supreme Court is an "impartial" group of people deciding and interpreting law that will impact us for generations to come, it's not.  For the most part, we know how justices are going to side.  Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are pretty much always going to fall on the liberal side of the position.  Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas are pretty much always going to fall on the conservative side of the issue.  That leaves Justices Anthony Kennedy falling to the left-of-center and John Roberts falling to the right-of-center.  That's not being impartial in the least bit.  If it was, Kennedy's retirement wouldn't be such a huge deal.

The Democrats and SCOTUS: The Real Record.  Elena Kagan nominated to the SCOTUS in 2010 by a Democrat president (Obama).  Kagan who was arguably the least qualified nominee in modern history as she had never served a single day as a judge at any level, was approved via Senate Vote 229 a 63-37 bipartisan vote in which twelve percent of senate Republicans voted "yes."

Why Did Elena Kagan Vote for the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court Ruling?  Observers of Monday's Supreme Court ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012 may have been surprised to find that two of the court's liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, joined with the conservative majority for the opinion.  But a legal expert told Newsweek this was the result of the very specific nature of this case.  "The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.  Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented while Breyer and Kagan, considered to be liberal-leaning, joined the more conservative justices in a majority ruling.

Refuse to Recuse.  Critics of President Barack Obama's recess appointments are calling on Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from a potential Supreme Court hearing on the matter.  The Chamber of Commerce raised the prospect of recusal, citing then-solicitor general Kagan's defense of President Obama's recess appointments in a previous case regarding the composition of the National Labor Relations Board.

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples.  [#6]  Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas Vs. Elana Kagan:  In 1987 and in 1991 when Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were respectively nominated to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, both men were utterly destroyed by the press.  In the case of Bork they were successful in preventing his nomination, not so in the case of Thomas.  It was so bad for Robert Bork that a verb was made of his name.

Did Justice Kagan embarrass herself during the Hobby Lobby oral arguments?  If Betsey McCaughey is correct (and I bet she is, because she has not only read the entire ObamaCare bill, she has written a book about it), Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan publicly humiliated herself during the oral arguments on the Hobby Lobby case, revealing that she either did not read the law, or failed to comprehend it if she did so.  Writing in the New York Sun, McCaughey lays out what is wrong with the Justice's declaration about Obamacare:  she asserted that the statute itself mandates provision of birth control.

Obama-Nominated Justice Kagan Officiates at Wedding of CBS News Reporter to Ex-Obama Staffer.  Julianna Goldman, who endured a marriage to former FNC, MSNBC, Current and Al-Jazeera America host/reporter David Shuster, got married on Saturday, in Aspen, Colorado, to Michael Gottlieb, a former associate White House counsel for Obama.  The New York Times reported on Sunday [7/13/2014] that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a former colleague of Gottlieb's at the White House, "officiated."

Justice Kagan Performs Her First Same-Sex Wedding.  Justice Elena Kagan has officiated for the first time at a same-sex wedding, a Maryland ceremony for her former law clerk and his husband.

Elena Kagan 2009: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage".  I know, 2009 was then, this is now.  Then she was a nominee for Solicitor General, now she is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  Then she was bound to follow the law, now she gets to make it.  Then supporting gay marriage may have sunk her nomination, now public opinion has shifted.

Justice Kagan in 2009: 'There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage'.  Of course, there was no right to constitutional right to same-sex marriage right up until last week when Kagan joined four other justices on the court in creating one.

Two Supreme Court Justices Must Go: The Case for Impeachment.  Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent in the same-sex marriage case that the ruling was a threat to our democratic form of government and constitutes a "judicial Putsch," or secret power grab.  He didn't just say the majority was wrong or misguided; he essentially said they had conspired to overthrow our form of government.  His position on the Court may have made it impossible to supply specifics.  But one possible explanation of what he meant is that he saw a conflict-of-interest on the part of members of the majority, which required their recusal from the case.  Rather than investigate what Scalia is hinting at, our media have opened fire on Scalia for blowing the whistle on judicial corruption.  In fact, the push for gay marriage has been tainted by lies from the beginning.

The Coming Confrontation.  [Scroll down]  Even our Supreme Court has been assigned a role in the destruction of the American culture.  There are parameters that the Court must abide by that have been trampled into oblivion.  Ethics have been set aside for political purposes in both the Obamacare and same sex decision.  States are laboratories for managed societal change and state's rights have been circumvented for the benefit of the Federal government and those dependent on it.  The non-recusal of both Ginsburg and Kagan are just the start of a judicial system that is progressive in nature and no longer follows the principled law that this country is founded on.

Dred Scott was popular, Justice Kagan.  Some things are so obvious that it surprises me that no one else says it.  I am surprised no one pointed out to Justice Kagan that we have a Supreme Court to do that which is unpopular.  The Court protects the Constitution from The Mob.  Miss Kagan said, "I'm not talking about any particular decision or even any particular series of decisions, but if over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that's a dangerous thing for democracy."  She should know better.  The worst decisions made by the Supreme Court are the ones that were popular at the time.

Startling Rift on Supreme Court Springs From Error by Kagan On Text of Obamacare Law.  A startling rift appeared Tuesday [3/25/2014] on the Supreme Court as the three female Justices came out swinging like Brunnhildes — women warriors — for what they erroneously labeled an "entitlement" to employer-provided contraceptives and morning-after pills.  The Justices were hearing oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a case hyped by the Democratic Party as a test for women's rights.  Justices Kagan, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor sprang on Hobby Lobby's attorney, interrupting his every sentence and pummeling him with questions taken right out of the Democratic Party's "war on women" playbook.

Cruz: Obama's View of Federal Power 'Knows Virtually No Bounds'.  Cruz points to Obama's own Supreme Court appointees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, to make his case:  "When President Obama's own Supreme Court nominees join their colleagues in unanimously rejecting the Administration's call for broader federal power six times in just over one year, the inescapable conclusion is that the Obama Administration's view of federal power knows virtually no bounds," the senator's report said.

Sotomayor, Kagan Browbeat Scalia over Voting Rights Act Argument.  Liberals have accused Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia of being the court's resident bully, but when two liberal female Suprem Court Justices -- Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- this week tried to browbeat Scalia and lawyers arguing against the Voting Rights Act's Section 5 pre-clearance requirement, the mainstream media hailed their efforts.

Obama's Second Term Regulations That Will Destroy America.  Imagine more justices in the philosophical mold of the president's most recent addition, Elana Kagan, a gun-unfriendly attorney who participated in writing the 1998 Clinton White House executive order banning imports of 58 types of "semiautomatic assault rifles".  Then there's also Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama nominee who joined Justice Stephen Breyer's dissenting opinion in the narrow 5-4 McDonald v. City of Chicago decision which clarified that Second Amendment rights apply to states.  An Obama reelection presents an extreme risk of replacing at least one of five Supreme Court justices who have vindicated Second Amendment protections in the precarious Heller and McDonald decisions.  If this were to happen, our right to bear arms might become a lost historical memory for future oppressed generations to read about.

The Editor says...
Future generations will read all about it, unless their electronic history books are scrubbed.

Latino Democrat: 'Marriage Between a Man and a Man Is Not Biblical'.  Speaking at the March for Marriage rally in Washington, D.C., on April 25, New York State Senator Ruben Diaz (D-South Bronx) spoke in favor of traditional marriage saying, "Marriage between a man and a man is not biblical," and, "It doesn't matter what the Courts say.  Christ lives."  He also questioned why Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, each of whom has officiated at same-sex marriage ceremonies in the past, have not recused themselves from Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case that comes before the Supreme Court on Tuesday [4/27/2015].

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples.  [#6] Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas Vs.  Elana Kagan:  In 1987 and in 1991 when Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were respectively nominated to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, both men were utterly destroyed by the press.  In the case of Bork they were successful in preventing his nomination, not so in the case of Thomas.  It was so bad for Robert Bork that a verb was made of his name.  After the press and Democrats succeeded in ruining his career and reputation the term "Borked" gained cache.  On the other hand, when Elana Kagan was nominated by Obama to serve on the highest court in the land, the media went out of its way to ignore key factors in her career in order to facilitate her ascension to the court.  Just for one for instance, when running as McCain's VP, Sarah Palin the media reported that she engaged in "book banning" when she was mayor of Wasilla.  But Elana Kagan actually ruled that book banning was OK and the media ignored the story during her confirmation hearings.  Liberal media bias 101.

Justice Kagan's sophomoric misunderstanding of West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency.  The Supreme Court's decision on West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, issued on the last day of its term, may mark the beginning of the decline of the unchecked power of administrative agencies to make law and issue judgments on their own.  The so-called "fourth branch of government," the "administrative state," has been grabbing power with no accountability to voters for many decades.  Congress has been its co-conspirator in short-circuiting political accountability. [...] Congress has defaulted for decades on its responsibility to write laws, by delegating its legislative authority to bureaucrats who then make up "regulations" (with the authority of law) and issue judgments and exact penalties (just like laws). The benefit for the legislators is that they escape the responsibility they would face if they had written these regulations as laws, when they produce negative consequences for interested parties, including potential campaign donors.

Justice Kagan warns parts of East Coast could be 'swallowed by the ocean' in dissent in EPA case.  Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan warned parts of the East Coast could be "swallowed by the ocean" in a dissenting Supreme Court opinion in an environmental regulation case Thursday [6/30/2022].  "If the current rate of emissions continues, children born this year could live to see parts of the Eastern seaboard swallowed by the ocean," Kagan wrote in her dissent.  Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kagan's dissent in the 6-3 case.  "Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to 'the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,'" Kagan wrote.

The Editor says...
I guess if a Supreme Court Justice says "parts of the East Coast could be 'swallowed by the ocean,'" and none of the other Justices dissent, the statement is carved in stone and can't be ridiculed.  The article below goes into some detail about the origins of that rash pronouncement.

How To Think Like A Liberal Supreme Court Justice.  Consider Justice Elena Kagan.  She was the Dean of the Harvard Law School.  Then she became the Solicitor General of the United States.  That's the person in charge of arguing the government's positions in the Supreme Court.  You need to be really smart to do that job.  So if you're looking for someone who can teach you the thinking processes of the very smartest of the smart, there is no one better to look to than Elena Kagan.  With that in mind, let's take a closer look at Justice Kagan's dissent on behalf of the three liberal justices in the case of West Virginia v. EPA that came out just last week.  That's the case where the six conservative justices held that EPA lacked the authority under existing statutes to transform the electricity-generation sector of the economy.  In my last post, I already quoted in full the second paragraph of Justice Kagan's dissent.  The first couple of paragraphs of an opinion are where a judge normally tries to encapsulate the essential gist of the argument, the reasoning that will capture the reader's attention and immediately convince him of the rightness of the judge's thinking.  So let's look at that paragraph again: [...]

Elena Kagan Claims 'Legitimacy' of Supreme Court Is at Risk When It Strays From Public Opinion.  [H]ere we go again — with more ignorance of the role of the United States Supreme Court in the aftermath of the Roe overturn.  Only this time, the idiocy comes from within SCOTUS, courtesy of Elena Kagan, who on Thursday claimed the legitimacy of the Court is tied to its conformity with public opinion. [...] Silly me.  All this time, I thought the Supreme Court's role was that of final arbiter of the law, thus ensuring the American people with the promise of equal justice under the law and, thereby, as guardian of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Exactly the opposite is true.
Kagan claims Supreme Court has to follow 'public sentiment'.  The Supreme Court may lose its legitimacy if it strays too far from public sentiment, according to Justice Elena Kagan.  Kagan, a liberal judge appointed to the court in 2010 by former President Barack Obama, tied the standing of the court to its "connection to the public," noting it could be dangerous if people continue to view Supreme Court justices as increasingly partisan, likely an allusion to the recent contentious court term that saw the overturning of Roe v Wade and an expansion of gun rights.  "I'm not talking about any particular decision or even any particular series of decisions, but if over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that's a dangerous thing for a democracy," Kagan said at a judicial conference in Montana.

The rainbow road to judicial lawlessness.  Elena Kagan is no less a political opportunist and beneficiary of gender-class affirmative action than Kamala Harris.  While Harris slept her way to power in San Francisco, Kagan leveraged her Manhattan family connections to rise through the Democrat ranks.  She entered Obama's orbit in 1991, helped Ruth Bader Ginsburg get confirmed to SCOTUS while a Senate aide, then, rising that same wave of female political empowerment, was appointed the first female dean of Harvard Law — where the LGBT agenda reigns supreme.  Harris and Kagan are both just hard left political assets with a law degree and an unshakable commitment to the LGBT agenda.  When Kagan (with no prior judicial experience) joined Ginsburg on the high court they tag-teamed as officiants in separate same-sex "marriages" during the pendency of the Obergefell v. Hodges case, the worst breach of judicial ethics in the history of the Supreme Court.  This was far worse than anything the conservative justices have been accused of in recent months by the same partisans who applauded the Obergefell travesty.