Posted on 02/06/2025 6:46:10 AM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to her conservative colleagues' willingness to upend decades-old precedents when asked Wednesday night about sagging public confidence in the court.
“I think my court would probably gather more public support if it went a little more slowly in undoing precedent,” Sotomayor said during an appearance in Louisville.
The conservative-led court — reshaped by three justices nominated by Republican President Donald Trump — overturned Roe v. Wade, ending nationwide protections for abortion rights. And it struck down affirmative action in college admissions, effectively overturning cases reaching back decades.
Sotomayor, a member of the court’s liberal minority, didn't delve into the precedent-busting cases during the Louisville event, but said the public doesn't like it when the court "moves too quickly in upheavals.”
“I think that creates instability in the society, in people’s perception of law and people’s perception of whether we’re doing things because of legal analysis or because of partisan views," she said. “Whether those views are accurate or not, I don’t accuse my colleagues of being partisan.”
She said they “genuinely have a belief in a certain way of looking at the constitution.”.....
Sotomayor spent more than an hour answering questions from the dean of the University of Louisville law school. Sotomayor was in Louisville to receive the law school’s Brandeis Medal, presented to people in the legal profession for their work advancing public service and their devotion to economic, social or political justice. UofL’s law school is named for Louis D. Brandeis, a former Supreme Court justice from Louisville.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
What's also wrong is the courts' failure to recognize that the 10th Amendment overrules supremacy. If the US Government does not have that specified power then they can't have supremacy over states in that area (e.g., Education, marriage, etc.)
Several SCOTUS decisions that are suspect: Roe vs Wade, Affirmative action, Kelo, etc. Just because the dissenting opinion(s) are in the minority does make it wrong.
She is such a wise Latina! /s
(I mean wide)
the SC is suppose to follow the rule of law not the rule of political push polling.
“Sagging confidence” is an AP manufactured irrelevancy
Roe v Wade = trash
Numerous state gun laws= trash
Birthright citizenship= hopefully trash
She said they “genuinely have a belief in a certain way of looking at the constitution.”..
seeing it through the eyes of a radical liberal?
slow down the liberal screamed, so we can hopefully get a future liberal majority that wont do this.
F that.
Full steam ahead!
You forgot Obergfell v Hodges. That one should go to the dung heap as well.
This is a simple reflection of the old adage, it depends on whose ox is being gored. When the SC issues some radical leftist decision, we lose trust in it. When they issue a decision friendly to conservatives, leftists lose confidence in it. All in a day’s work really,.
In many ways SCOTUS has morphed from Supreme Court of the US into the Supreme Clowns of the US. John Roberts made the statement that their judges are impartial but their voting record proves that is not the case at all.
No doubt AP interviewed her because they want to ask, “why can’t they stop Trump already”.
Calling this woman an activist jurist is so much of an understatement.
Given she is a type 1 diabetic, and 70 years old, her, Alito and Thomas are the most likely ones to retire/be replaced.
We can only hope that Republicans control the White House when they do.
if it went a little more slowly in undoing precedent,”
We take a look at DEIs like her, Kagan and Brown and we stop wondering....
Bring back Dredd - Scott... it was precedent...
Trump appointed textualists, like Scalia was. She is not.
Another DEI hire, what can you expect?
On precedent. Courts can make mistakes. This is not “evolving” jurisprudence — it is correcting an error that violated the Const AT THAT TIME.
What she is saying is that once a court rules that = “established science”. And, as any scientist knows, yah never question science. Like I said, another DEI hire.
The Constitution is a living document.
At one time the Dred Scott decision was a precedent!
Has the Wide Latina forgotten that?
She wants to move more slowly??? These are 60-100 year old previous decisions. I’m sure she will be happy to wait another 100 years before the cases are addressed again.
EC
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.