Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Justice Sotomayor
Fox News reports, “Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a scathing rebuke of the court’s decision to allow the Trump administration to enforce its ‘public charge’ rule in the state of Illinois, limiting which non-citizens can obtain visas to enter the U.S.
Fox goes on, “Sotomayor’s problems with the conservative majority’s ruling went far beyond this case, claiming that it was symptomatic of the court’s habit of siding with the government when they seek emergency stays of rulings against them.”
I find this particularly hypocritical since the leftist justices vote in lockstep far more reliably than the justices she calls out. I remember listening to her confirmation hearings. She promised an open mind on gun issues and immediately proved herself to be a liar after taking her place on the court. In a normal world, her “wise Latina” comment would have been enough to sink her nomination. Oh, well. I shouldn’t be surprised anymore by someone of the left lacking self-awareness.
Published in General
And she comes from the “Party of Government”! For them, Government is only good if it’s Leftist. The rules never apply to them, and no leftist has ever had an “open mind”, since they don’t operate with their minds. They govern with their Feelings.
Now that the Notorious RBG has annoyed progressives by reaffirming the idea of deadlines being deadlines, and a ratification vote 40-plus years ago for the Equal Rights Amendment can’t be used in 2020 to claim the amendment has passed, Wise Latina may be cruising into the role of Most Beloved Supreme Court Justice on the left. The problem is while Ginsberg displayed the look and personality over the years of Dr. Lilith Sternin on “Cheers” (Hi, Rob!), Sotomayor’s dissents tend to get emotional and be all about the feels more than they are about actual constitutional law. For the types that like to at the very lest pretend their progressiveism is based on cold, unemotional logic, that’s not as good an icon to revere, since Sotomayor veers far more often into emotionalism right off the bat in her opposition to whatever the topic of the moment is.
How about, we limit emergency appeals to the Supreme Court by the Trump Administration if the Democrats agree that a federal judge in a Hawaiian strip mall can’t issue an injunction effective in all 50 states.
Deal?
I believe it is an actual requirement.
Our Senator Lindsey Graham voted for this monstrosity. I hope all Republican Senators have learned to vote against any Democrat nominee to SCOTUS, no matter what. We can’t afford the left to trash the system we so desperately want to get back to – rule of law, not emotion or political agenda . . .
Obviously, Chief Justice Roberts needs to call the Wise Latina in to reiterate that “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges…” Sounds like something got lost in the translation.
I know that Graham wasn’t in the Senate during the Robert Bork confirmation hearing but one would think that he would have at least HEARD of it. That debacle should have been a lesson for every Republican senator but somehow they forgot about it.
Justice Sotomayor’s decision is somewhat mischaracterized by the Fox headline. She did not specifically mention the Trump administration. She did mention the “government,” which at the moment is the Trump administration.
On January 27, SCOTUS granted a stay of a New York federal court’s nationwide injunction on the same issue, by a 5-4 vote (with the usual lineup, opinion here). Justices Gorsuch and Thomas took the unusual step of drafting a concurrence explaining the problem — calling this new practice of broad injunctive relief granted by district courts “not normal.”
In her dissent to the February 21 order granting a stay of an Illinois court’s state-wide injunction, again by a 5-4 vote (opinion here), Justice Sotomayor complains that the grant of such stays by SCOTUS is becoming “a new normal.”
I think that her fundamental complaint mischaracterizes the prior opinion by Gorsuch and Thomas. Sotomayor complained that the prior opinion made much of the “nationwide” character of the injunction that was stayed in the prior case (the one out of New York), noting that the current stay is limited to just one state (Illinois). But the prior concurrence was not so narrow. Rather, it objected to the increased tendency of lower courts to grant injunctive relief beyond the parties to the case:
Gorsuch and Thomas called on the Court to articulate a standard for such broad injunctions. It is difficult to do so, which I suspect is the reason for the Court’s current practice of simply smacking-down specific injunctions that it finds to be overly broad.
“Smack-down” may be a legal term of art that I recall from law school in the 1990s. Or maybe from watching professional wrestling.
She’s right–any bias towards Originalism is a bias towards Trump. I hope there is more Originalism in future justices.
And Lindsey Graham voted to confirm her nomination. Something to keep in mind.
Oooh. Two justices concurring in a snarky comment! (I presume the use of the term “cosmic” is snark and not a term that was ever actually used in an injunction.)
Her “wise Latina” comment that she
Should have earned her the title of “confessed bigot.” She should be introduced in news stories as “Confessed Bigot Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor …”
As far as I know she’s neither retracted nor apologized for her “wise Latina” comment. It’s blatant bigotry.
The facts are worse than you describe. During her confirmation hearing, Lindsey Graham asked confessed bigot Sonia Sotomayor to repeat for the record her “wise Latina” comment. When she started to deflect, he let her off the hook. He even told her that she didn’t have to say it. I’ve heard reports that Lindsey Graham used to be a prosecutor. I’m skeptical. He sucks at direct examination, much less cross examination.
Graham v2.0 fared much better in the Kavanaugh hearings. But in the wake of the Clarence Thomas hearings over a quarter-century earlier, it was sad that he was actually shocked by the left’s actions in the Kavanaugh hearings, as if he had just sleep-walked through his first 15 years in the Senate until McCain passed on, and he now suddenly had to pay attention, instead of just following along with whatever Maverick did.
Interesting that you should bring up McCain, as even McCain voted against the Sotomayor confirmation. Whatever the reason it’s good that Graham improved.
I agree – I heard her say she would bring her “wise Latina” influence to the bench, I immediately threw a flag and said “Ejected!”. Pure bigotry. WTF is “wise Latina” justice?? How is it different from “normal, ordinary, scholastic” justice? If a guy said “I’ll bring some good-ole-boy redneck justice to the court”, wouldn’t we have some questions?
If I called a plumber, and she showed up and said she’d fix it the “wise Latina way”, I’d say no thank you, I just need it fixed the “ordinary, professional plumber” way. If the next person I called happened to be an actual wise Latina, but she said she’d fix it the normal, professional way, I’d say come on in, thanks for coming.
If the Donald gets 4 more years the sweet justice will likely be an after thought on a 6-3, 7-2 court watching all her work “setting policy” from the bench go poof.
We can dream. It’ll be like a reset. The left will actually have to learn to persuade people to get what they want.
An old colleague of mine used to say he sees the progressives’ point, namely that we need to strike a balance on the Supreme Court. A balance between upholding the Constitution and undermining it.
I was out of the country during the Kavanaugh hearings (probably a good thing, since I’d have surely been driven to commit an illegal act as an involuntary reaction to the atrocious denial of due process protections for Kavanaugh), but I did see a replay of Lindsey Graham’s rant, in which he intended to chastise the Dems for their willingness to ruin Christine Blasey Ford’s life in pursuit of the Dems’ false narrative.
He used the pronoun “you” so many times, referring to so many different individuals and groups that his rant produced no useful sound bite.
I’ve heard reports that Lindsey Graham used to be a prosecutor. I’m skeptical. He sucks at direct examination, he sucks at cross examination, and he sucks at closing argument.
Well, did anyone ever claim he was a GOOD prosecutor?
I once had a pediatrician tell me to smear Vick’s vaporub on my infant daughter’s feet to help her cold or whatever malady. She said that’s what wize old women from Mexico do. I didn’t go back to her.
At the time, Republicans had only 40 votes in the Senate; so even under filibuster rules, any opposition would be purely symbolic. (Possibly Graham needed to shore up his support among Hispanics.)
If you want to be mad at somebody, blame the Clueless One, George H.W. Bush, for naming Sotomayor to the Federal bench in the first place, and defending her from “unfair” Republican attacks during her Supreme Court confirmation.
Isn’t this what we accuse democrats of doing? Since Bork in 87.
No. We accuse Democrats of voting for nobody other than Democrat pro-abortion candidates.
Perhaps Republicans should save their votes for those times when they can actually make a difference. When they can’t, the smart move is probably to work on establishing a reputation for bipartisanship.
Note the way the Democrats, when they were in the minority, politely voted to confirm Antonin Scalia. And then, when they were in the majority a year later, demolished Robert Bork.
Also, some of the Democratic nominees are ordinary liberals (e.g., RBG), while others are crazed progressives (e.g., Sotomayor). Republicans should do what they can to make nominating the latter as costly to the Democrats as possible.
They should always vote for the right thing, and vote against the wrong, whether it makes an immediate difference or not. Unfortunately, they have a far better reputation for bipartisanship than Democrats do.
There is no bipartisanship anymore. That ship has sailed. The massive reach of federal power has made every issue a life or death issue. If you lose on any issue, you lose on every issue.
The only way to change the dynamic is to radically reduce federal power. Then we can return to a posture where what the feds do doesn’t matter so much.
I won’t vote for anyone who wants bipartisanship without first eviscerating federal power.
Personally, I have no problem with Dems voting against all Rep nominees — even if it’s purely for political reasons. The voters can assess those votes and act accordingly. What I have a huge problem with is character assassination (Bork), “political lynchings” (Thomas) and unsubstantiated allegations presented as facts (Kavanaugh). That’s what I accuse Dems of doing, and if Reps start doing it, I’ll accuse them as well.
If a Senator’s goal is to get absolutely nothing done while establishing a reputation for ideological purity, that’s the way to go.
The ethical course is to trade small bads for greater goods; that is, to vote for a bill that does a small harm in return for getting another Senator’s vote for a bill that gives a greater benefit.
As there is no constituency in the United States for “eviscerating federal power”, I suppose you’re waiting for a giant meteor to crash into the Earth, ending civilization. (A meteor crashing into Washington alone would probably result in nationwide martial law.)
By the way, we’re seeing a degree of bipartisanship right now: both Republicans and moderate Democrats like Chris Matthews are appalled by Bernie Sanders. There are limits, of course: as appalled as many Democrats are, they say they will still vote for him.