Sonia Sotomayor Insults Brett Kavanaugh

Justice Sonia Sotomayor used an appearance this week to suggest that Justice Brett Kavanaugh is an out-of-touch elitist. The comments were a disturbing departure from the tradition of collegiality and civility on the court. It was unfair and unwarranted...https://t.co/72aJImnbs7

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 10, 2026

...Justice Sotomayor is not someone whom I view as gratuitously rude or cruel. I believe that she values collegiality and the Court as an institution. However, this was another injudicious moment during public events. She should correct this statement at the earliest opportunity.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 10, 2026

Inappropriate.

Sonia Sotomayor and the 'Reddest of Red Herrings'

Sonia Sotomayor thinks she's got a real zinger, telling a @GOP lawyer: "Maybe we should have another president now" because Florida's military ballots came after election day in the 2000 Bush v. Gore fight

He responds: "With all due respect, that is the reddest of red herrings." pic.twitter.com/ZBAno5iyoB

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) March 23, 2026

Sotomayor Compares Butchering Children With Taking Aspirin

Rice: "How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?"

Sotomayor: "Every medical treatment has risk. Even taking Aspirin." pic.twitter.com/I4k8ujr5Hl

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 4, 2024

Sonia Sotomayor is nuts.

That's the kind of talk I'd expect to hear on The View, not coming from a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Shameful.

Lindsey Graham Is a Problem

Lindsey Graham voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, and Merrick Garland but can’t vote for Pete Hegseth?

Guess who the REAL problem is…… @LindseyGrahamSC

— Spitfire (@DogRightGirl) December 4, 2024

Sickening.

Sonia Sotomayor Pushed to Retire

There are new calls for Justice Sotomayor to retire. https://t.co/2T7AzsruwX Advocates are demanding a younger liberal justice who will ensure a reliable vote for years to come. Some have suggested more coercive measures to push justices to retire. https://t.co/Afst1Uitf3

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 18, 2024

Sonia Sotomayor is 69 years old.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg remained on the Supreme Court until her death at 87.

Jonathan Turley writes:

At 69, Sotomayor shows no signs of mental decline. She has been a highly effective justice, stepping into the vacuum created by the death in 2020 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Of course, few ever questioned the “Notorious RBG” in her decision to stay on the Court, despite her much older age and longer tenure. While some of us noted that Ginsburg was taking a huge risk in not allowing then-President Barack Obama to pick a successor, she remained on the Court in spite of medical problems and ultimately was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Ginsburg, however, was almost 20 years older than Sotomayor. There is no concern for deterioration or death on the bench in Sotomayor’s case. It is simply a matter of swapping out justices like light bulbs before they burn out.

The grumbling from the left reflects the raw political calculations that are now commonly applied to the Supreme Court. Justices are treated as cutouts for partisan outcomes; the worth of a justice is now largely seen as her potential longevity rather than her jurisprudence. Sotomayor‘s seat is viewed as a lock for liberals, who want to trade for a new model before the new year (and a possible Republican president).

None of this is surprising in a time when law school deans have called conservative justices “hacks” and law professors have called for protesters to aggressively target individual justices.

Democrats/Marxists/Leftists are destroying our country.

Sotomayor Praises Thomas

“Justice Thomas is the one justice in the building that literally knows every employee’s name, every one of them. . . . he is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution, about the people who work there — about people.” - Justice Sotomayor pic.twitter.com/Pz4TKWeFi3

— JCN (@judicialnetwork) June 17, 2022

I wonder how this praise for Clarence Thomas from Sonia Sotomayor will go over with the crazed protesters harassing Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett at their homes.

I'm sure the hosts on The View, and other Leftists like them, aren't happy with this outpouring of civility and reasonableness from Sotomayor.

Sonia Sotomayor - Terrified

Also, i thought masks work? I'm sure she would wear a mask.

— Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) January 18, 2022

If vaccines and masks work, then why is Sotomayor afraid?

If vaccines and masks don't work, why does she want them forced on the public?

Walensky Confirms Sotomayor Lied

CDC Chief Confirms Justice Sotomayor Greatly Exaggerated Pediatric COVID Hospitalization Numbers https://t.co/8bgAREo3P0

— Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) January 10, 2022

Sonia Sotomayor revealed herself to be a political hack. She's an embarrassment.

Sonia Sotomayor Should Recuse Herself

Legal Experts Ask Justice Sotomayor To Recuse Herself From Case Due To Her Being An Idiot https://t.co/aAZ6SaXaaL

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 9, 2022

Sonia Sotomayor Spreads FALSE COVID Information

NEW: Justice Sonia Sotomayor said during oral arguments today that “we have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators” due to the coronavirus. That's False. https://t.co/9itoVd1s1L pic.twitter.com/zX8Nf6Bx8r

— PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) January 8, 2022

Sotomayor made a fool of herself.

Sonia Sotomayor - Not Smart

I think Sotomayor really tipped her hand today on just how much of a lightweight she is. Federal police power, bloodborne virus… good lord. This is a Supreme Court Justice. 👀🥴

— Molly McCann (@molmccann) January 7, 2022

Justice Sotomayor claimed today that 100 thousand children are currently hospitalized with covid.

100 THOUSAND.

A Supreme Court Justice making a legal decision that will impact the medical freedom of the whole country doesn't even know basic facts about covid.

— Mercedes Schlapp (@mercedesschlapp) January 7, 2022

J. Sotomayor says over 100K children in serious condition, "many on ventilators" #SCOTUS

— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) January 7, 2022

J. Sotomayor says Omicron is as deadly as Delta. #SCOTUS

— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) January 7, 2022

Is Sotomayor really as stupid as she sounded yesterday?

Is she a liar? Is she such a lightweight?

It's clear she doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. She's a Democrat political hack and is propagandizing, or she's frighteningly ill-informed.

Sotomayor is truly an embarrassment.

Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Colbert

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is scheduled to be on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

Is that a good idea?

Given Colbert's extreme hostility toward Brett Kavanaugh and his relentless attacks on the president and members of his administration, it might not look too good for Sotomayor to be rubbing elbows with such a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat while a Leftist partisan audience cheers her on.

SCOTUS Upholds 'Travel Ban'

Here’s our @NRO editorial on the ‘travel ban’ decision: https://t.co/6650UE1GJH

— Andrew C. McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) June 27, 2018

Andrew McCarthy writes:

Under long-standing precedent, the judiciary may not second-guess the denial of a visa, even if an American citizen claims derivative harm from it, if the executive branch offers a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason. This, coupled with the manifest care taken by the administration to tailor the travel restrictions narrowly, should have been cause for the courts to stay their hand. The lower courts did not do so, however, because of Donald Trump’s purple prose on the hustings and in the early days of his presidency, in which sensible concerns about border security and jihadist terrorism were framed in terms that could be construed as anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim. Clearly, as the barely controlled rage of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent attests, that is why what should have been an easy decision turned into a 5–4 cliffhanger.

As the majority correctly countered, though, the judiciary’s role in a democratic society is not to police political bombast or substitute its judgment for that of the voters and the political branches. There is no special jurisprudence of Trump, no judicially legislated exemption that denies this duly elected president the legitimate constitutional and statutory powers of his office. Federal judges do not have to like the president, but their allegiance is supposed to be to the law, not to the Resistance.

It is disturbing that four justices pledged their allegiance to the Resistance rather than the law.

Moreover, the facially neutral proclamation refutes the claims of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bias. The travel restrictions are not limited to Muslim-majority countries; they do not cover the vast majority or the world’s Muslims; the Muslim-majority countries that are cited were previously designated as problematic by Congress and prior administrations; and, as already noted, Muslim-majority countries have been removed from the list once the Trump administration judged them to have improved their compliance. Further, as the majority found, Congress did not intend, by barring discrimination based on nationality in the issuance of visas, to restrain the president’s power to limit the universe of admissible aliens. This claim is rebutted by both historical practice and common sense — as the Court explained, it would absurdly prevent the president from suspending entry from countries suffering epidemics, sponsoring terrorists, or on the brink of war with the United States.

If Trump's intent was to ban Muslims from entering our country, he failed miserably. The travel restrictions "do not cover the vast majority or the world’s Muslims."

Moreover, the countries with the world's largest Muslim populations, Indonesia, Pakistan, and India, aren't included in the travel restrictions.

Let's be honest. Trump's "travel ban" is not a ban on Muslims.

Hate for Trump is not justification for the abandonment of the law.

Supreme Court Allows Travel Ban

From Politico:

President Donald Trump’s beleaguered travel ban policy chalked up a significant victory at the Supreme Court on Monday as the justices allowed full implementation of the latest version of the restrictions and indicated that the justices’ concerns about the president’s actions on the issue might be eroding.

Lower-court rulings had exempted from the travel ban foreigners with “bona fide” family, business or educational ties to the United States, but the justices issued an unsigned stay order on Monday that allows Trump to carry out the new policy even on those with U.S. connections, at least for now.

The third iteration of the president’s travel ban sought to limit to varying degrees issuance of visas for travel to the U.S. by citizens of eight countries, six of which are majority Muslim.

Only two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, indicated that they would have denied the Trump administration’s request to fully implement the policy, which the president issued by proclamation in September.

What appeared to be a 7-2 vote to let Trump proceed is a notable swing on the Supreme Court from the 6-3 vote in June in which a majority of the justices ruled that those with a “bona fide relationship” would not be subject to an earlier version of the travel ban.

In the June order, three justices from the conservative wing — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — were the only members of the court willing to let the president implement that policy.

“I think that’s very significant,” said Professor Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law. “Generally, when Justice [Anthony] Kennedy votes to grant the stay, that means they’re going to reverse” the lower courts.

Ginsburg and Sotomayor also passed up the opportunity to explain why they disagreed with their colleagues’ latest move.

“They didn’t write anything. They may just see where it’s headed,” Blackman said.

I'd like to know what Ginsburg and Sotomayor were thinking.

Obama's 2nd Inauguration: Observations

I did not plan on watching live any of Obama's 2nd inauguration. Too depressing.

I changed my mind.

I always watch the inauguration of the president. It's a moment when I'm moved by the greatness of my beloved country. So, I did watch - from the invocation to the benediction.

Some thoughts--

Michelle's bangs - She has a different hairstyle. So what?

Michelle's coat - A little snug. It looked very uncomfortable. The sleeves were so binding.

The Obama daughters looked very nice and so did Michelle's mother.

Enough about fashion.

After Joe Biden stumbled through the oath, administered by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, he leaned over and kissed her.

Did he say, "This is a big f---ing deal"?

When it was Obama's turn to take the oath, Chief Justice John Roberts did the swearing in, a public event repeated after yesterday's private ceremony.

Roberts really bugs me. Let's all remember ObamaCare is law because Roberts decided it was a tax. ObamaCare is a TAX. Obama is the taxer-in-chief, and not just on the rich.

When Obama swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," I gagged. King Obama, the imperial president, has shredded the Constitution. Religious liberty? Not for all, not for Catholics.

I found Obama's inaugural address to be utterly uninspiring at best. At worst, it was hypocritical and offensive, taking jabs at his political enemies.

Transcript here.

Of course, Obama's speech was riddled with his usual class warfare crap and a warped view of the American Dream.

This line was outrageous: "We cannot mistake absolutism for principle or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate."

GOOD GRIEF!

Obama has taken presidential political spectacle and name-calling to unprecedented heights.

Sickening.

When Obama spoke of our inalienable rights - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," when he talked about protecting our innocent children and the weak, I thought of his complete disregard for the most innocent and vulnerable among us - the unborn.

Obama, the most radical pro-abortion president in American history, doesn't protect life. He doesn't respect it.

I heard nothing new from Obama. He didn't challenge Americans. He did't encourage us to achieve. His words didn't point to any goals. Obama simply reiterated his stale lines. His view of freedom is being a slave to a massive, central government.

No, thank you.

David Arquette and Sonia Sotomayor

David Arquette thinks that Sonia Sotomayor is qualified, but as a Latina woman, she may be nuts.

DAVID ARQUETTE: I think Latina women are.... I mean, it depends on the woman, but I think they are very, like, have great judgment; but there are some that are just nuts.

...

I'm from Los Angeles so we know all about the Latina women.

...

Oh yeah, [Sotomayor's] qualified. But who knows if she's nuts or not?

...

I love Latina women.

Actually, this all sounds like something Joe Biden would say.

Letterman: Top Ten Signs Sonia Sotomayor Is Getting Cocky

TOP TEN SIGNS SONIA SOTOMAYOR IS GETTING COCKY

10. Addressed senators with "Whaddaya say, Meat?"

9. Spent the entire hearing updating her Twitter page

8. Interrupted questioning to get fitted for her robe

7. Turned surprisingly hostile when told "No open containers"

6. Left early to tackle the case of Sotomayor vs. Applebee's Riblets

5. Started hitting on Clarence Thomas

4. Kept referring to Al Franken as "Church Lady"

3. Phoned in from All Star Game in St. Louis to see how the confirmation hearings were going

2. Only answers she gave were "Maybe" and "How the hell should I know?"

1. Took the day off to go salmon fishing with Sarah Palin

I don't think Letterman can do a show without mentioning Sarah Palin.

Sotomayor: Latina Comment

Today, Sonia Sotomayor "clarified" the racially charged comment she made that has caused such an uproar.

"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."

From the Associated Press:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor says she doesn't believe that "any racial or ethnic group has an advantage in sound judgment."

She was asked Tuesday at her Senate confirmation hearing to clarify her controversial remark that a "wise Latina" might be able to make better decisions than a white man.

Sotomayor told Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy that she used those words in an effort to inspire groups of young Hispanics to believe that "they could become anything they wanted to become."

The high court nominee said she believes different life experiences enrich the legal system.

What a crock!

She said what she said. It wasn't an isolated quote taken out of context. Her statement reveals her mindset. She has repeated it a number of times. It is a deeply held belief.

Sotomayor is engaged in spin.

Her "clarification" is a lie.

If it's not, then she's had quite an epiphany recently. She's a changed woman. She no longer believes that a "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male."

I don't buy it.

It appears that Sotomayor has undergone an extreme, albeit extremely temporary, makeover for the confirmation hearing.
_________________

Jeff Sessions questions Sotomayor about her "wise Latina" remark.

Al Franken and Mark Levin

Yesterday, Mark Levin shared a spot-on assessment of Al Franken and the U.S. Senate.

MARK LEVIN: And then there's this buffoon who represents Saturday Night Live.

When I saw him on the Senate Judiciary Committee, it finally hit me. This is the worst damn Senate in modern history. Really. I don't know how much lower it can get. Who's next? What other idiots are the Democrats going to impose on us, ACORN and the rest?

Al Franken is a United States senator. Now all you whiners out there who are complaining that you can't make it, if this good-for-nothing, no talent can be a U.S. senator, so can you.

Levin goes on to say that "all those years of snorting cocaine have taken an effect."

I don't know how much Franken's long history of illicit drug use has to do with his current intellectual state, but it is hard for me to comprehend that he is a U.S. senator.

The image of Franken at Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing was surreal.

Minnesota, how could you?

Russ Feingold and Mark Levin

On his show on Monday, Mark Levin made some comments about Wisconsin's Russ Feingold and Sonia Sotomayor.

Transcript

MARK LEVIN: There's Russ Feingold. Let me... I'm going to tell you what I feel, as a Jewish American. I am so embarrassed when I see the likes of Schumer and Specter and Feingold. I just, I can't take it.

Centralized, authoritarian governments have been very bad for the Jewish people. Very bad. And they all start with empathy. Oh, empathy, compassion, spread the wealth. And then what comes? Jealousy. Tribalism. Anti-Semitism. Anti-black. Anti-Hispanic, whatever. Whatever the group hate of the day is. And it's all goosed along by the government.

And so it pains me to listen to idiots like this, Russ Fool's Gold, aka Feingold. And here's what he had to say today, Cut 7, go:

"One attack that I find particularly shocking is the suggestion that she will be biased against some litigants because of her racial and ethnic heritage."

OK, that's enough.

You're an idiot. You're really offended by people pointing out that on multiple occasions she's exposed her bigotry? Really? So much for the liberals and their empathy.

Here's the Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, as prepared for delivery.

Video.