Liberals have a new Supreme Court target and you won't believe who it is

[ExpressLane]

Liberals have a new Supreme Court target and you won't believe who it is


"I live in frustration ... To be almost 70 years old, this isn’t what I expected." Those words from Justice Sonia Sotomayor appear to resonate with some liberals, but not in the way intended by the jurist. Some activists and journalists are beginning to nudge Sotomayor to leave the Court in order to be replaced by a younger jurist, much as was done to Justice Stephen Breyer in 2021 and 2022.

On CNN, journalist Josh Barro bluntly wondered why Sotomayor remains on the bench when younger jurists could be brought on to guarantee a liberal vote for years to come. He indicated that many liberals are frustrated with her for not stepping down: "I find it a little bit surprising, given what Justice Sotomayor describes there about the stakes of what is happening before the Supreme Court, that she’s not retired. She's 69 years old, she’s been on the court for 15 years."

Sotomayor gave her frank assessment of being "tired" and "frustrated" during an appearance at the University of California, Berkeley Law School. She suggested that the Supreme Court's conservative majority contributes to her daily burden. It was a notable interview not only for its content but for its moderator, UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

Chemerinsky previously shocked many in the legal community by denouncing Sotomayor's six conservative colleagues as "partisan hacks." In response to Chemerinsky's probing, Sotomayor took an implied swipe at her colleagues and declared: "I live in frustration. Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart. But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting."...
=======================

She can retire when Trump is President. She won't leave until she has to like RBG did. Sotomayor is the dumbest Judge on the SCOTUS.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Liberals have a new Supreme Court target and you won't believe who it is


"I live in frustration ... To be almost 70 years old, this isn’t what I expected." Those words from Justice Sonia Sotomayor appear to resonate with some liberals, but not in the way intended by the jurist. Some activists and journalists are beginning to nudge Sotomayor to leave the Court in order to be replaced by a younger jurist, much as was done to Justice Stephen Breyer in 2021 and 2022.

On CNN, journalist Josh Barro bluntly wondered why Sotomayor remains on the bench when younger jurists could be brought on to guarantee a liberal vote for years to come. He indicated that many liberals are frustrated with her for not stepping down: "I find it a little bit surprising, given what Justice Sotomayor describes there about the stakes of what is happening before the Supreme Court, that she’s not retired. She's 69 years old, she’s been on the court for 15 years."

Sotomayor gave her frank assessment of being "tired" and "frustrated" during an appearance at the University of California, Berkeley Law School. She suggested that the Supreme Court's conservative majority contributes to her daily burden. It was a notable interview not only for its content but for its moderator, UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

Chemerinsky previously shocked many in the legal community by denouncing Sotomayor's six conservative colleagues as "partisan hacks." In response to Chemerinsky's probing, Sotomayor took an implied swipe at her colleagues and declared: "I live in frustration. Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart. But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting."...
=======================

She can retire when Trump is President. She won't leave until she has to like RBG did. Sotomayor is the dumbest Judge on the SCOTUS.

This is it right there. It's all political maneuvering.

 

[archives]

This is it right there. It's all political maneuvering.

Mitch made the SCOTUS political, a political rather than judicial entity.

Beginning with the Garland fiasco, making confirmation a majority vote, and fast tracking nominations turned the SCOTUS into the joke it is today

The journalist here is just playing Mitch’s game, calling to appoint a younger Justice now with the Democrats controlling the Presidency and Senate to insure the left maintains that seat on the Court for decades to come

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Mitch made the SCOTUS political, a political rather than judicial entity.

Beginning with the Garland fiasco, making confirmation a majority vote, and fast tracking nominations turned the SCOTUS into the joke it is today

The journalist here is just playing Mitch’s game, calling to appoint a younger Justice now with the Democrats controlling the Presidency and Senate to insure the left maintains that seat on the Court for decades to come

You have no sense of history. The most egregious politicalization of the Supreme Court was clearly and unequivocally while FDR was in office.

 

[Lionfish]

Mitch made the SCOTUS political, a political rather than judicial entity.

Beginning with the Garland fiasco, making confirmation a majority vote, and fast tracking nominations turned the SCOTUS into the joke it is today

The journalist here is just playing Mitch’s game, calling to appoint a younger Justice now with the Democrats controlling the Presidency and Senate to insure the left maintains that seat on the Court for decades to come

Poor anchovies, the SC has been political for decades.

 

[archives]

You have no sense of history. The most egregious politicalization of the Supreme Court was clearly and unequivocally while FDR was in office.

You mean the Court that nullified his reform efforts?

 

[archives]

Poor anchovies, the SC has been political for decades.

To a degree perhaps, but when Mitch made appointment a majority vote it became nothing more than a political appointee, least sixty votes meant you still had win over some minority votes

 

[Lionfish]

To a degree perhaps, but when Mitch made appointment a majority vote it became nothing more than a political appointee, least sixty votes meant you still had win over some minority votes

Poor anchovies, sorta like the dems threats to increase the number of judges in the SC to tip it in their favor? That political shit?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You mean the Court that nullified his reform efforts?

In FDR's case they rubber stamped them. Initially, yes the Supreme Court did nullify FDR's efforts like the New Deal. That initially saw the courts throw out over 90% of it as unconstitutional. As Justices retired, FDR put in people that were yes men, the worst of which was undoubtedly Hugo Black. He was the first of 9 appointments FDR made. Black was a KKK member, racist, anti-Catholic, considered very liberal, and an ardent supporter of FDR's New Deal without regard to its constitutionality. His appointments that followed all were New Deal men who rubber stamped it.

 

[Flash]

In FDR's case they rubber stamped them. Initially, yes the Supreme Court did nullify FDR's efforts like the New Deal. That initially saw the courts throw out over 90% of it as unconstitutional. As Justices retired, FDR put in people that were yes men, the worst of which was undoubtedly Hugo Black. He was the first of 9 appointments FDR made. Black was a KKK member, racist, anti-Catholic, considered very liberal, and an ardent supporter of FDR's New Deal without regard to its constitutionality. His appointments that followed all were New Deal men who rubber stamped it.

FDR wanted to add members to the court but this did not happen because the court reversed itself and began ruling his policies constitutional--"the switch in time that saved nine."

 

[T. A. Gardner]

FDR wanted to add members to the court but this did not happen because the court reversed itself and began ruling his policies constitutional--"the switch in time that saved nine."

More like he wanted to pack the court by adding more justices but settled for replacing the ones on it with Yes men that would rubber stamp his policy and the New Deal. The court didn't so much as reverse itself as it simply got packed over time and then ruled in favor of FDR's policies.

 

[Flash]

More like he wanted to pack the court by adding more justices but settled for replacing the ones on it with Yes men that would rubber stamp his policy and the New Deal. The court didn't so much as reverse itself as it simply got packed over time and then ruled in favor of FDR's policies.

The court's conservative majority was striking down FDR's New Deal legislation by 5-4 decisions. In the West Coast Hotel Co decision in 1937 Justice Roberts reversed his vote to side with the liberal minority on future decisions.