Justice Sotomayor – Exhibit One, Liberal Intemperance


Meantime, the ones who might be questioned closely on “judicial temperament” are those who trip and fail to separate their political and judicial philosophies, you might say judicially “shooting before they think.” Sotomayor is exhibit one.

One of the canards lofted to defeat judicial conservatives facing Senate confirmation is “judicial temperament.” Putting aside the irony, that catch-all allows congressional antagonists to bait a nominee, without specifics. How ironic then, that Justice Sotomayor just proved the point.

Last week, in arguments before the High Court on Biden’s highly questionable mandate on private businesses, in effect forcing employees to undergo involuntary vaccination or frequent testing by threatening OSHA punishment of their employer, the esteemed Justice proved the adage.

The adage that comes to mind is that silence allows people to presume the best of you, while speaking might cause them to question your logic – or “judicial temperament.” As Mark Twain once quipped, “It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid,” or even smart, “…than to open it and remove all doubt.” 

So, what did Justice Sotomayor just do? This justice, while a role model in some ways, has repeatedly shown that her political philosophy – not her judicial one or temperament – governs her thinking, and she often missteps, suggesting questions about other justices should be kept in perspective.

This is a justice who spurred racism questions with her pre-nomination praise for the “wise” Hispanic woman over the “white male,” who has subsequently been one of the most vocal, visceral, unreserved, and some might say intemperate voices to sit on the High Court. Her dissents are often stingingly political.

Donald Trump’s extension of the Obama era policy, with congressional direction, of vetting travelers to the US from high-risk countries, dubbed a travel ban on Muslim countries, spawned a harsh dissent. Said the left-leaning justice, she bluntly – and without basis – tagged him as pushing “anti-Muslim animus.”

That was in 2018, only to be followed by a string of “out there” dissents, including one that compared state laws enforcing capital punishment to being “burned at the stake,” another that dissed the High Court when a state university ban on racial preferences was upheld, lecturing the Chief Justice on racial discrimination. See, e.g., ‘The People’s Justice’: After decade on Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor is most outspoken on bench and off.

Then she wrote a variety of anti-police opinions against GPS tracking, saying police “shoot first and think later,” and added other colorful language. When evaluating states’ rights to assure transparent or accountable elections, she seethed states just aim to purge registration of “minority, low income, disabled, and veteran voters.” The statement was objectively absurd, and she offered no proof or logic.

Then, while absolving or remaining silent on liberal states redistricting plans, she castigated a conservative state for executing a similar redistricting plan, based on a process not unlike others.

In a recent term, she conjured up what can only be described as a fanciful Court conspiracy, saying that the conservative majority was involved in pushing a “shadow docket” that did not adhere to a left-leaning agenda. What did she mean? Apparently, she did not like how oral arguments were scheduled.

Finally, she has run her mouth at times and in places that lead one to wonder, even if a supporter of her political views, whether she is exercising that vaunted “judicial temperament” to which conservatives are supposed to leave.

The latest, however, is embarrassing, the sort of bold misstatement – and from the bench – that leads an observer, of any political stripe, to put his or her head in hands. Last week, in what seems to have been off-script, off-prep, off-road judicial freelancing, she leveled politically tinged accusations.

Favoring more federal control, innately anti-state’s rights, she created a squall of affected hysteria and just let fly. Her words echoed in the courtroom apparently, like an admission against interest.

What she said was that “hospitals … are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators,” and “we have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, many on ventilators.”

Facts are somewhat different, actually entirely different, even referencing the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), taking the best possible interpretation of what was said by the esteemed justice.

While Omicron is highly transmissible, the severity of the virus appears a fraction of past iterations. As major media have reported, “younger people are at far less risk … of severe outcomes,” and the facts uttered are drawn from the ether – nothing supports the bold-faced statement.

Did that stop this liberal, activist justice from carrying on? Did a correction swiftly issue? Was a response to the obvious misstatement – and prejudicial one – of a central, even dispositive fact get made? Is there any sense of embarrassment that a justice is making decisions on faulty, made-up information? Answer:  No.

All this returns us to the opening issue. When people talk blithely of “judicial temperament,” one is well advised to think about who sits on the bench, how they behave, what wing of the court tends to showcase the opposite.

More could be said, but perhaps the best reflection on this topic is that those of conservative temperament tend to speak with deliberation, in effect, from a personal nature that is more temperate – not always, but often. 

Meantime, the ones who might be questioned closely on “judicial temperament” are those who trip and fail to separate their political and judicial philosophies, you might say judicially “shooting before they think.” Sotomayor is exhibit one.

We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...

Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.

Donate Now

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 year ago

During her confirmation hearings , Sotomayer was asked how she felt about the 2nd Amendment . She replied that she was not aware of whether or not the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to the States . Apparently she doesn’t believe that the States ratified the whole constitution and all of its Amendments . I guess she believes that a State is not bound by the constitution . That it is a ‘federal’ only charter . That the Constitution serves only to limit the powers of the Fed in order to preserve the sovereignty of the States and/or the people . The Constitution was designed in such a way as to keep the Fed under control (or limitation by ) the States . The 2nd Amendment was intended to keep the States free ( of the fed and others , England for one ) and relied on the Sovereign citizen arms to keep it that way . Therefore , a Federal Official must NEVER be allowed to rule on or to infringe upon our 2nd Amendment . I don’t believe Sotomeyer fully understands her role as a Federal official . BTW , this is yet another reason why we must repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the States’ Legislatures to elect Senators to represent the States vis o vis the Fed. A repealed 17th Amendment will stop unfunded fed mandates dead in their tracks for one .

1 year ago

Not intemperance- more like incompetence! I listened to her read talking points obviously given to her by the abortion industry during the hearings about the Texas law, then she’d ask a witness a question but cut them off before they could answer the question. She’s a liberal political appointee joke!

John Gannon
1 year ago

Listen to what she stated about the situation of the Corona Virus and never realized how out of touch she is to what is actually happening in our Country and World – all she had to do is actually investigate Hospitals patients- also how can it be so bad if Hospital Administrators are firing employees who don’t take the shots but were taking care of patients from day one of virus

1 year ago

We must have term limits for the Supreme Court justices, 12 years and you’re done. GO HOME!
Sotomayer supremely out of touch. OUT OF TOUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 year ago

Although I was probably not aware of the issues when she was appointed, it seems to be fair that the Supreme Court has completely dissolved into the political arena because of justices illogical decisions over the last decade, maybe also over the last half century. THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THE OBAMA CARE WAS LEGAL, BUT WAS ONLY PASSED ON THE MERRITS THAT IT MUST MEET THE TAX BASIS OF CONGRESS PASSING A NEW TAX ON THE CITIZENS, AND BOTH THE ARGUEMENTS FOR AND AGAINST IT DEFIED CHIEF ROBERTS SOLUTION. Anyone with common sense saw that legislation passed by manipulation of words sent forth by the chief justice. It did not rise to the legality of law as was written, and should have been defeated, but C.J Robert’s returned it to be corrected by the DNC for making it eligible as a tax code. Once the tax section was stripped out of the law, it became no longer eligible as the law of the land, and it should have been removed. Only one Senator whom had run on the promise to remove Obama signature law betrayed his state and people that elected him. McCain was known as Rhino, but never before had so much been put on a mans simple vote, he was a dead man walking, and he tarnished any sense of his historical past. THE SUPREPME COURTS JOB IS NOT TO WRITE LAW, BUT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS MEETS THE STANDARDS TO PASS THE CONSTITUTION. Many lower courts have been involved in writing law, not judging on the current laws on the books. We can blame the people we elect, they are too incompetent or just plain political motivated to write laws that surely the courts must try to address, and that is where the courts are now political arena of the two party system.

1 year ago

Another ignorant commie Dem. Another Obama mistake.

Nick Patriot
1 year ago
Reply to  Karen

Sorry Karen, she was no mistake, just intentional to hate America like her nominator Comrade Obama. Kagen too. Commies all……

1 year ago
Reply to  Nick Patriot

Yeah, your right NIck. I know it was intentional but I just like to get it all off my chest.
Commies all!!!!!!!!!

Tim Thompson
1 year ago

She was put on the court by Obama and unfortunately made it through. Her years on the court one need not look up the decisions she’s voted on they are all far left decisions along with Kagan another disaster. I would be happy if some of the the conservative side like the recent decent from Kavanaugh and Roberts sided with the leftist judges in allowing vaccines to keep being administered to the medical profession. I would like to see some leftist judges going against a standard vote in favor of the left and have them side with the conservative side. It would then seem that we have judges who use their own sense not just a liberal or conservative bent.

Paul Richardson
1 year ago

Very good article and perhaps we should consider a method of judicial review whereby a justice could be removed for such incompetence!

Philip Seminara
1 year ago

She is a disgrace and will answer to God.

Voter Ann
1 year ago

Is impeachment for cause an option for a justice of the Supreme Court? I nominate this woman to get the award for “first incompetent Justice to be removed from the Supreme Court.” [NOTE: the Democrats consistently like to make a big deal out of the “FIRST” people to do anything.]

Patty Quackenbush
1 year ago

This justice should not even be in this country. She hates America and her people. People like her do not belong in this country. They would do this country a great service by going where their garbage beliefs are accepted. We area nation founded under God with Judeo-Christian values and beliefs and she does not recognize that let alone rule on our Constitution instead of her personal ideology.

Rich C
1 year ago

Kind of makes you think term limits on SCOTUS would be a good thing.

Rusty Rat
1 year ago

When she was confirmed to sit on the Court she stated she would rule on how she “FELT: about the argument being presented and not on the Constitution. She has done that consistently, no matter how ignorant her feelings were. A sad choice for a Supreme Court Judge..

1 year ago

That someone so out of touch with reality could be on the “supreme court” is frightening.

1 year ago

One more point. We have a democratic Republic. A republic represents all the people. Democracy is when only the majority rules. The Electoral College was designed to prevent that from happening. If we had a democracy then New York and LA could decide each election. Plato called democracy “mob rule,” and the worst kind of government. It seems that the left-wing mob is ruling. How sad that dullards, thugs, liars, and cheats are in charge at the very time we need people who are real, honest, good, and seek the truth. Term limits for all of our public SERVANTS!!!!! They are our employees! And what about the left wing bureaucracy implanted like rotten teeth throughout the various government offices?

Patty Quackenbush
1 year ago
Reply to  Emer

We have a Constitutional Republic.

1 year ago

Sotomayor is not very bright with no sense of shame just as so many on the radical side of things are not bright. Left-wingers seem uneducated to the horrors of socialism/communism/progressiveness. The horrors lead to total control by dictating mad men. It seems also that true mental illness is at the root of many who burn, steal, and murder in the name of a philosophy which ends in burning, stealing, and murdering other humans, but when in office just stealing and lying. The article is very understated and even kind in a polite society kind of way. Yet, there is regret the essay does not point out the evil inherent in her words which are so like the left to lie, lie, lie, and then some. People who want to save the country and the Constitution keep wondering if the left always lies or are they just stupid.

1 year ago

“most outspoken” may, or may not, be issues with Sotomayor, but her stupidity and idiocy certainly are. Her appointment snacks of political favoritism, as she’s really too stupid to have passed a bar….anywhere.
Her ignorance is actually frightening.

1 year ago

So she lied during her conformation hearings, what’s new. Their appointment should be revoked if they cannot leave their political views behind and follow our CONSTITUTION. Years ago a powerful attorney had their car in for service and on the front seat were books on how the LIBERAL COMMIES will use the Judicial system to destroy the Constitution. Justice Sotomayor is a PRIME EXAMPLE!

George Washington's Admirer
1 year ago

Judicial Philosophy in this instance, is devoid of good old common sense, horse sense, or just a sense of how this country is doing as a whole. When these all knowing judges sit down to deliberate discuss, and meditate on all things precedent; they need to take a walk around the block. They need to pick up the newspaper and see how the ordinary people are attempting to survive in this country. They need to get their judicial feet squarely on the ground. Every decision they make affects the whole country & the economy too! Sometimes, they effectively divide the country; when they don’t take the WHOLE COUNTRY into consideration!

1 year ago

This is the kind of judge the left wants in place as they seek to pack the court and push our republic into a one party state……balance is needed, and the rest of the judges should see just what imbalance comes when the likes of this judge opens her mouth and espouses anything but “constitutional” concern. Sadly, we are stuck with her for many years to come and we seem to have little “counter-balance” in place. I don’t understand why those presenting this care did not challenge her wrong information in the process of these oral arguments…..she propagated lies as argument against the issue and needed to be called out on the spot.

Patricia Barr
1 year ago
Reply to  D.P.

There must be some process for correcting such behavior in the high court. Any city actually. For inventing statistics to support an ideology. For not using facts, logic and reason in her absurd statements. She needs to be removed. At least censured. But no, she’s a leftie so no consequences. I’m so frustrated! We’re in trouble!

1 year ago
Reply to  Patricia Barr

There is. Our Constitution makes it clear. Judges serve only while doing a good job. But our politicians are too useless to deal with these issues.

1 year ago

This broad needs to go back to the rule of law that insists that judges are there to enforce the laws of our country, uphold the constitution, and do so without political forethought or interference. She is the epitome of a far left radical politician that has absolutely no business being on the supreme court.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x