Pardon me for being a little confused here.
Now, I'm no legal scholar - I don't even pretend to play one where at HotAir - but I always thought that Supreme Court justices were supposed to be, if not the shy, retiring type, at least marginally unbiased in public about current events.
Or so I thought.
I guess I was wrong, because the wise Latina was out and about, boldly being a cheerleader for the loyal opposition recently, and it's pretty surprising.
Justice Sotomayor needs to recuse herself from any Trump Administration cases.
— Spitfire (@DogRightGirl) May 9, 2025
This is outrageous. @StephenM pic.twitter.com/0BBndFO67h
There she was - a Supreme Court justice - at an American Bar Association get-together and aligning herself with the troops in the trenches of legal warfare, only against a sitting president, not in a general sense.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, speaking to hundreds of lawyers at an American Bar Association event on Thursday night, urged the legal profession to toughen up.
“If you’re not used to fighting, and losing battles, then don’t become a lawyer,” she said. “Our job is to stand up for people who can’t do it themselves.”
“Right now,” she added, “we can’t lose the battles we are facing.”
Justice Sotomayor spoke in general terms, but her remarks came against the backdrop of immense stress on lawyers and the legal system from the Trump administration. That tension included a string of executive orders from President Trump retaliating against prominent law firms, stripping their lawyers of security clearances, barring them from entering federal buildings and discouraging federal officials from interacting with the firms.
VURT THE ACTUAL FURK?
...“We need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight,” she said. “For me, being here with you is an act of solidarity.”
Good grief.
And the Left lost their cookies over Judge Alito's wife and her flags?
Eminent legal scholars I am lucky enough to follow on X are somewhat put off by the Wise Latina's remarks to the group.
Who is the “we” that Justice Sotomayor is referring to here? https://t.co/H6GY61PwLG
— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 9, 2025
...Sorry, but who is this “we” that Sotomayor is referring to?
It’s generally incumbent upon judges to portray a semblance of impartiality with regard to ongoing political matters, especially given that such issues could ultimately come before their courts (as has already happened several times under this Trump administration). To signal one’s personal views beforehand and eventually issue rulings based on one’s preferred outcome instead of what the law calls for is both improper and a gross abuse of judicial authority.
But much like her colleagues Ketanji Brown Jackson and John Roberts, Sotomayor doesn’t seem to care.
While others are wondering how she functions after that without recusing herself in every case, the ABA is connected to which concerns President Trump.
...As previously indicated, what’s particularly disturbing about the Obama appointee’s Thursday remarks is their implication for matters involving the ABA that come before the Supreme Court. As aptly noted by Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino, Sotomayor’s temper tantrum “makes a mockery of any appearance of objectivity in cases challenging the administration or involving the ABA.”
The JCN president highlighted how the ABA has filed an amicus brief in a case currently pending before the high court. Known as United States v. Skrmetti, the matter involves challenges to state laws prohibiting health care providers from providing harmful puberty blockers and genital mutilation surgeries to minors.
Not to mention the God danged obvious, glaring hypocrisy of it all.
So what do the Democrats who regularly look for lame pretexts for conservative justices to recuse from cases have to say about this? And are the journos worried about the ethics of what she said or are we all good? pic.twitter.com/d0dnG6QYSA
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) May 9, 2025
I sure hope Amy Coney Barrett is enjoying her cozy relationship with this intellectual and ethical giant.
The rule of law is just an obstacle to the activist left — not a passion.
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) May 9, 2025
It’s inevitable after decades of ideological corruption of academia and the law that we would get ideologues on the bench.
Does Roberts jerk her up?
I know, I know - pipe dream.
The liberal females on the SCOTUS bench are frickin' unbelievable.
As someone just said on X, the next justice Trump gets to nominate had better be to the right of Robert Bork.
And to hell with anyone who gets in the way of that nomination.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member