Tag Archives: soniasotomayor

by

Daily Broadside | A Spot Opens on the Supreme Court and We Already Know Who Will Fill It

Daily Verse | Exodus 23:2
Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong.

Thursday’s Reading: Exodus 25-28

Thursday and the big news is that Brandon will get to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. Justice Stephen Breyer is stepping down at the end of the current Supreme Court term.

Breyer, who is 83, has been the subject of rampant speculation about his retirement. Liberal activists were calling for the justice to retire soon after Biden was inaugurated. Sources close to Breyer, however, said the justice made the decision on his own terms and was not forced out. 

Breyer is a consistently liberal justice, so any pick by Brandon won’t change the make-up of the court. Observers currently assess the court as 6-3 conservative leaning, although with some of the more recent decisions, you could’ve fooled me (looking at you, Chief Justice Roberts).

Brandon promised to nominate a black woman to the court to secure Rep. Jim Clyburn’s, (D-S.C.), endorsement during the 2020 South Carolina primary.

“In the wake of Justice Breyer’s retirement, I want to voice my support for President Biden in his pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. The Court should reflect the diversity of our country, and it is unacceptable that we have never in our nation’s history had a Black woman sit on the Supreme Court of the United States,” [Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.,] said. 

We’re now at that stage in our country’s dissolution when superficial characteristics, like skin tone, are a priority when choosing someone to fill a powerful and enduring role. Like VP (Virtue Pick) Kamala Harris, so this one will be. Rather than focusing on the person’s ability to objectively and impartially interpret the U.S. Constitution, identity politics has taken over and progressives will relentlessly push a radical who will give them what they want that they can’t get otherwise through the legislative process.

In other words, the person won’t earn the position based on merit.

Instead of a political appointment, what we need are ORIGINALISTS who interpret the constitution as it was written, not reading new “rights” into it like Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges. Nor do we need picks who simply fulfill some aggrieved constituency’s demands, like Sen. Murray and Rep. Clyburn are demanding.

Speaking of Virtue Picks, Justice Sotomayor just wrote a scathing dissent over S.B. 8, “the six-week ban that allows virtually anyone to sue providers and their ‘abettors.'”

As she did during each previous encounter with S.B. 8, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a seething dissent from her colleagues’ refusal to provide relief. Her latest opinion reaches a new level of bruising, eloquent fury. It also conveys the very strong impression that the Republican-appointed justices are on the brink of overturning Roe outright, and there is nothing she can do but denounce its imminent downfall.

What did the “wise Latina” write?

I dissented in Whole Woman’s Health II because the Court’s dismissal of the most important portions of the petitioners’ claims, beyond being unfaithful to our precedents, left all manner of constitutional rights vulnerable to nullification. I explained that the Court had “clear[ed] the way for States to reprise and perfect Texas’ scheme in the future” in order to target this and other rights with impunity.

Today’s decision shows that any hope that Whole Woman’s Health II might protect the Constitution’s guarantees in this case was illusory. As it turns out, Texas did not even have to amend its law to sidestep the minimal relief this court left available. Instead, Texas wagered that this court did not mean what little it said in Whole Woman’s Health II or, at least, that this Court would not stand behind those words, meager as they were. That bet has paid off. Despite this Court’s protestations over the “extraordinary solicitude” it gave this case and the narrowness of any dispute, it accepts yet another dilatory tactic by Texas. As a result, the District Court will remain powerless to address S. B. 8’s unconstitutional chill on abortion care, likely for months to come.

This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies. I will not stand by silently as a state continues to nullify this constitutional guarantee. I dissent. 

That doesn’t sound like a reasoned opinion. It sounds like a tantrum—a tantrum thrown by a liberal.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who is very concerned with the perception of the Supreme Court, once rebuked president Trump when he complained about decisions the court had made. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them … That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” He also once said, “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans.”

That sounds noble and there’s probably some truth to it, but the greater truth is that the justices work as Liberals and Conservatives and sometimes as Swing Votes. Everybody knows it. Every pick is made with an eye on the nominee’s politics and judicial philosophy.

Breyer, 83, has served on the court since 1994, after he was appointed by President Bill Clinton to replace the liberal icon Harry Blackmun. One of the body’s most prominent liberals, Breyer consistently found himself at odds with the court’s conservative majority, and even more so during Donald Trump’s White House tenure after the Senate confirmed Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

So don’t believe that SCOTUS is an impartial body. They’re not. And the Democrats will nominate as radical a pick as they think they can get through the Senate, with Virtue Pick Kamala Harris being the deciding vote.

If you want a peek at the list of Brandon’s nominees, look what The Babylon Bee found: Exclusive: The Babylon Bee Has Obtained Biden’s List Of Possible SCOTUS Nominees.

Don’t write me letters.

by

Daily Broadside | Justice Sotomayor, Not the Fetus, is Braindead

Daily Verse | Galatians 5:14
The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Friday’s Reading: Ephesians 1-6

Happy Friday, Broadsiders. I’m learning to say “crochet” in 35 other languages because you never know when you might need it.

A short post this morning as we head into the weekend in follow up to the arguments yesterday in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. In particular, I want to point out that Justice Sonia Sotomayor was not only hostile to Mississippi Attorney General Scott Stewart, who challenged Roe’s standard of viability; she was illogical in her responses.

I mentioned yesterday that Sotomayor questioned the State of Mississippi’s compelling interest in the viability of an unborn baby by asking, “How is your interest anything but a religious view … that’s a religious view … because it assumes that a fetus is life.”

First, no where does our Constitution say that religious motivations or views are not permitted when considering a decision. Second, her accusation that “a religious view … assumes that a fetus is a life” can be applied to her secular view that assumes a fetus is not a life.

That wasn’t the only thing Sotomayor said that got a strong reaction. She compared a fetus feeling pain to a braindead person responding to stimuli.

Mississippi Attorney General Scott Stewart challenged Roe’s standard of viability: that the state does not have an interest in protecting the life of a child until 24 weeks (six months) into pregnancy. Stewart argued that babies’ ability to feel pain before viability should play a role in determining whether the state should protect their lives.

“I don’t see how that really adds anything to the discussion, that a small fringe of doctors believe that pain could be experienced before a cortex is formed,” Sotomayor said while interrupting Stewart repeatedly.

In response to Stewart’s assertion that babies recoil from surgical instruments at as young as 15 weeks, Sotomayor argued that braindead people, who are considered officially dead in most states, can still sometimes respond to stimuli such as being touched on the feet.

“I don’t think that a response by a fetus necessarily proves there’s a sensation of pain or that there’s consciousness,” she said.

Her full comment comparing a live baby in utero and a braindead person in a hospital bed was, “Yet, the literature is filled with episodes of people who are completely and utterly brain dead responding to stimuli. There’s about 40 percent of dead people who, if you touch their feet, the foot will recoil. There are spontaneous acts by dead brain people. So I don’t think that a response to — by a fetus necessarily proves that there’s a sensation of pain or that there’s consciousness.”

Is that your opinion, Judge? This woman is showing how weak the arguments are for Roe.

It isn’t a “small fringe of doctors” who believe a fetus can feel pain. Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted, “It is well-established medical practice to provide anesthesia to the unborn child regarding medical procedures performed before 24 weeks because the nerve endings, which generate pain, are well-developed.”

Sotomayor is uninformed and biased, allowing her political views to color how she views this case. Not very smart for “a wise Latina woman.” In fact, sort of “braindead” if you ask me.

Have a good weekend.