Posted on 09/30/2021 3:32:45 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Days before the start of a tumultuous term, and after the Supreme Court justices divided bitterly over a Texas law that bars most abortions after six weeks, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned an audience of law students about the frustration of having to write dissents.
"There is going to be a lot of disappointment in the law, a huge amount," she said Wednesday at an event hosted by the American Bar Association. "Look at me, look at my dissents."....
"The Court's order is stunning," Sotomayor wrote at the time. "Presented with an application to join a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of the Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand."
Sotomayor added: "The Court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law," she concluded.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Is she saying this is a great decision that should never have been overturned?
....or that we should respect the "precedent" of forced sterilization in Buck v. Bell, which (btw) cites the "vaccination" case as being supportive precedent.
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
Her type of thinking is what happens when a SCOTUS member puts lefty ideology ahead of the Constitution.
It's not about the law, it's about what she wants, and how can she bend the law to fit her twisted views.
When the head of Housekeeping from the Hyatt Grand gets promoted to a SCOTUS seat as the unwise Latina.
Her deferral to the “sanctity of precedents” is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. Leftists excel in jettisoning long-established law.
It is written in the Constitution that escaped slaves are really the property of their slaveholders and therefore Dred Scott had to be returned to his owner.
Rught there in the penumbra of Article XVIII.III it is.
And an outright racist- as per her actions with the New Haven Firefighters case when she was a federal judge.
Or is that "wise Latinx?"😁
Our Constitution is unique.
It doesn’t tell you what you can do.
It tells the government what it can’t do to you.
All of us will face judgement. The justice is wrong, period. Abortion is murder of the innocent.
As if Sotomayer cares about the law. She votes her policy views with little regard for the constitution as do the other 2 liberal stooges on the court. If she feels it is unconstitutional, then she should enjoy a taste of her own medicine when it comes to policy. No one elected this dumb racebaiter. She represents no one.
I’m still trying to understand where in the Constitution does it say a woman has a right to an abortion?
It’s amazing how it works. ‘Interstate commerce’ includes commerce wholly within a state and the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” really doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Women gain the right to vote then used that right to kill their children.
Women gain the right to vote then used that right to kill their children.
Women gain the right to vote then used that right to kill their children.
I,m sorry. All I had to see was ‘Look at me’ and think this must be a pretty insecure justice.
, ‘ coffee would be nice this morning
It’s right next to the line that says separation of church and state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.