What's new

Trump Calls Out Sotomayor For Her Activism

The Purge

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
16,560
Reaction score
4,794
Points
290
Read more at
Townhall.com ^ | February 27, 2020 |

President Trump is right to call out Justice Sotomayor, and other unelected black robed social justice activist hacks who are masquerading as non-partisan upholders of the rule of law.

Remember when the United States Supreme Court carefully guarded their time-honored independence from the politics of the Executive and Legislative branches? In those days, rarely were they ever seen or heard from outside of rendering opinions, and they kept those decisions based on the law, not politics. Those days are over thanks to judges who believe it is their role to act as a super legislature.

Recently Justice Sotomayor showed her disdain for President Trump in an exercise of judicial activism when in a dissenting opinion in Wolf v. Cook County, she accused the Court of putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the Trump administration by siding more times than not in his favor.

Back in 2001, in a speech given at the University of California School of Law at Berkeley, Sotomayor insinuated that her white male colleagues could not render decisions on people of color or a different gender because they could not relate to them. Sotomayor said: “I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”

Sorry Justice Sotomayor, but that is precisely the definition of judicial activism on behalf of a particular demographic. Need more proof? She further said, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and the wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”....

------------

How long before Roberts gives him the crap about how honest the judges are. If it weren’t for the Obama Resistance judges, he would be in the Supreme Court so often.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
57,182
Reaction score
10,409
Points
2,070
Read more at
Townhall.com ^ | February 27, 2020 |

President Trump is right to call out Justice Sotomayor, and other unelected black robed social justice activist hacks who are masquerading as non-partisan upholders of the rule of law.

Remember when the United States Supreme Court carefully guarded their time-honored independence from the politics of the Executive and Legislative branches? In those days, rarely were they ever seen or heard from outside of rendering opinions, and they kept those decisions based on the law, not politics. Those days are over thanks to judges who believe it is their role to act as a super legislature.

Recently Justice Sotomayor showed her disdain for President Trump in an exercise of judicial activism when in a dissenting opinion in Wolf v. Cook County, she accused the Court of putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the Trump administration by siding more times than not in his favor.

Back in 2001, in a speech given at the University of California School of Law at Berkeley, Sotomayor insinuated that her white male colleagues could not render decisions on people of color or a different gender because they could not relate to them. Sotomayor said: “I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”

Sorry Justice Sotomayor, but that is precisely the definition of judicial activism on behalf of a particular demographic. Need more proof? She further said, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and the wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”....

------------

How long before Roberts gives him the crap about how honest the judges are. If it weren’t for the Obama Resistance judges, he would be in the Supreme Court so often.
Sotomayor said: “I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”

Sorry Justice Sotomayor, but that is precisely the definition of judicial activism on behalf of a particular demographic.

There is nothing in her statement but thoughtful reason. You, too, are a product of your experiences; so am I, so are all of us. Fortunately, Sotomayor is far more aware of the gravity of her position than the Trumpbots. She is there to interpret laws according to the Constitution. She has a set of thoughts ideas and opinions that are no more "partisan" than those of Kavanaugh or anyone else on the court. They are just different than theirs.
 

Maxdeath

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
4,007
Reaction score
1,171
Points
275
Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”....
Out of all of what she wrote the above struck me. Why on earth does she believe that a Latina woman reach a better conclusion then a white male?
Because she is racially and gender biased? Or does she think that men are incapable of reasoned thought?
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
8,662
Reaction score
820
Points
275
Read more at
Townhall.com ^ | February 27, 2020 |

President Trump is right to call out Justice Sotomayor, and other unelected black robed social justice activist hacks who are masquerading as non-partisan upholders of the rule of law.

Remember when the United States Supreme Court carefully guarded their time-honored independence from the politics of the Executive and Legislative branches? In those days, rarely were they ever seen or heard from outside of rendering opinions, and they kept those decisions based on the law, not politics. Those days are over thanks to judges who believe it is their role to act as a super legislature.

Recently Justice Sotomayor showed her disdain for President Trump in an exercise of judicial activism when in a dissenting opinion in Wolf v. Cook County, she accused the Court of putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the Trump administration by siding more times than not in his favor.

Back in 2001, in a speech given at the University of California School of Law at Berkeley, Sotomayor insinuated that her white male colleagues could not render decisions on people of color or a different gender because they could not relate to them. Sotomayor said: “I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”

Sorry Justice Sotomayor, but that is precisely the definition of judicial activism on behalf of a particular demographic. Need more proof? She further said, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and the wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”....

------------

How long before Roberts gives him the crap about how honest the judges are. If it weren’t for the Obama Resistance judges, he would be in the Supreme Court so often.
Sotomayor said: “I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”

Sorry Justice Sotomayor, but that is precisely the definition of judicial activism on behalf of a particular demographic.

There is nothing in her statement but thoughtful reason. You, too, are a product of your experiences; so am I, so are all of us. Fortunately, Sotomayor is far more aware of the gravity of her position than the Trumpbots. She is there to interpret laws according to the Constitution. She has a set of thoughts ideas and opinions that are no more "partisan" than those of Kavanaugh or anyone else on the court. They are just different than theirs.
She's a commie socialist who is helping to lead us into 2nd and 3rd world status. At some point people will stop paying for a lot of things. At least up front in taxes. And many have as it is growing in numbers. Of course the hidden taxes are the real monsters in our daily survival. How much can be tolerated?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top