The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Sotomayor Defends Justice Thomas
In remarks to the American Constitution Society, Justice Sonia Sotomayor shares her thoughts on the senior-most Associate Justice.
Yesterday, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor addressed the annual conference of the American Constitution Society. Her remarks were covered in the New York Times, CNN, and Huffington Post. Video of the remarks is available here.
As noted in the NYT report, Justice Sotomayor defended the Court.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor urged an audience of progressive lawyers on Thursday not to give up on the Supreme Court.
"We have to have continuing faith in the court system and our system of government," she said, adding that she hoped "to regain the public's confidence that we — as a court, as an institution — have not lost our way."
A justice speaking in defense of the Court as an institution is not all that surprising. Perhaps more notably, she also came to the defense of her colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas. Again from the NYT report:
Justice Sotomayor singled out Justice Thomas for praise. "He is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution," she said, adding that he is a beloved figure there.
"Justice Thomas is the one justice in the building that literally knows every employee's name," she said.
Justice Sotomayor said her interactions with Justice Thomas have been instructive. "I suspect I have probably disagreed with him more than with any other justice," she said.
"He has a different vision than I do about how to help people and about their responsibilities to help themselves," she said. "Justice Thomas believes that every person can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I believe that some people can't get to their bootstraps without help.
"That's a very different philosophy of life, but I think we share a common understanding about people and kindness towards them," she said. "That's why I can be friends with him and still continue our daily battle over our difference of opinions in cases."
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I know, "Reverend"
CT's a "Bitter Klinger" (if a Brutha's gotta right to be bitter it's CT) probably a Race-ist too, During the whole Annie Hill Fiasco, you could tell he wanted to tell the Senators that he wouldn't have effed AH with any or their dicks (OK, Ted Kennedy and Strom Thurmond would Eff anything)
Best opinion he's done was the one with the prisoner complaining about his small cell, which happened to be much more spacious than where his victims were..
Frank "Thurgood Who?"
A new Judiciary Act is needed. Move the Court out of the Beltway to Wichita, KS. Increase its size to 500 if it insists on legislating from the bench. Put a limit of 18 years, non-renewable for the terms. Exclude anyone who has passed 1L. Most of the prior Justices were not lawyers. Make it easy to immediately impeach Justices for their decisions, perhaps with 60 Senators minimum. Remind them that Article I Section 1 has not been amended. It gives all legislative powers to the Congress. Make all judicial review decisions require approval by the Congress within a year, or they are void. This out of control Supreme Court has been making decisions about highly technical subject despite being know nothing book worm lawyers who never had a real or useful job in their lives. Those decisions are within the ability and the legal authority of the Congress or of the state legislatures. Their decisions have had damaging and hideous consequences.
Glad to see collegiality is still alive and well at the Supreme Court.
Which is why 'Ruth Sent Us' is so grotesque, RBG is the last person that would send demonstrators to justices homes to try and intimidate them.
+1
If you were a social worker, or even a politician, such talk would be appropriate. You're supposed to be a judge. Your job isn't "to help people." It's to resolve disputes according to law, not your idiosyncratic ideas of what does and doesn't "help people."
That was my reaction too. Stop trying to help people by making them do the things you approve of; start trying to honor the Constitution.
Exactly.
I agree. Though we do need more progressives out there who are willing to accept this truth. That the other side of the aisle isn't unconcerned with helping people. The vast majority of us--Conservatives, Progressives, Libertarians, etc.--want to help people. We just disagree on the best way to do that. Most Progressives push the lie that anybody who doesn't agree with their methodology is a heartless, uncompassionate, evil person. It's nice to see one admit that's not the case.
Sure, but I'd also add that the right needs to stop calling progressive justices bad-faith policy-pushers who lie when they write their opinions.
Most conservatives push the lie that anybody who doesn't agree with their methodology is an unprincipled, Constitution-hating, evil person. It'd be nice to see one admit that's not the case.
Oh bullshit. You're as much an idiot as always, and hijacking a comment to boot when it says something sensible that doesn't jibe with your Progressive narrative, or worse, threatens it.
The comments here is about pushing your narrative instead of interpreting the plain law. You have just proved the point.
...You sure you haven't proven my point, blowing up at my ask that you don't call liberals evil?
"hijacking a comment to boot"
Your comment just two comments up did what Sarcastro was suggesting maybe you shouldn't do. I presume your blowup is because you were caught being the partisan hack abudd77 and Sarcastro were asking people not to be.
Stop being such a tool, Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf.
And the left bellows that anyone that legislates or rules contrary to their liking is LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE!!!!!
That knife cuts both ways very effectively. Political hyperbole is stupid mindless crap but those with politicisis of the brain just lap it up like starving dogs. So neither side is going to stop.
I absolutely agree that the left has it's dumbass bomb-throwers in spades, and turning everything into life-or-death seems to be their go-to.
But on this, I'm afraid, there is partisan symmetry. Check out the right on abortion. Or how they yell COMMUNISM and then mention the Black Book. The right is still accusing the other side of wanting megadeaths.
It's proven very effective in the current juncture. I take some solace that the heat of rhetoric does tend to seem cyclical over our history. It'll swing back, or something will break and it'll swing back after something radical happens.
"The right is still accusing the other side of wanting megadeaths."
Just as some commenters here refer to the Rs as the "pro-death party."
But on this, I'm afraid, there is partisan symmetry.
Exactly, this partisan dunce is one of the reasons why people are losing faith in the institutions.
They’ve become one sided vehicles for policy preferences, not umpires calling balls and strikes and evenly enforcing the rules.
She's not talking about judicial philosophy or how they view their jobs, she's talking about their general outlooks on life. This is fairly obvious even from the quotation here ("That's a very different philosophy of life, but I think we share a common understanding about people and kindness towards them.") and is extra obvious if you view it in context (it starts at about 43:48 in the video).
"He is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution,"
Maybe libs ought to stop saying he leaked the Dobbs draft or conspired with his wife.
I’ve only heard Republicans saying a liberal clerk leaked it.
Yeah, that's silly.
As is the right who is sure it's a liberal clerk. Sometimes even naming names thanks to some dumbass Internet sleuthing.
Ginny Thomas has made herself interesting regarding the 2020 election all on her own.
Yes she has, but what has that got to do with Clarence, and how he does his job?
In fact I should point out Kellyanne Conway and her Husband George as a perfect example of spouses being able to separate their political opinions, but still maintain their day jobs without compromise.
I can assure you George wasn't getting to Kellyanne and prevent her from vigorously doing her job tending to Trump's political fortunes.
Nothing - absent some additional evidence that is silly, as I said.
Thomas absolutely has a partisan chip on his shoulder already in his interviews, but by and large his opinions have hewed to his idiosyncratic jurisprudence pretty faithfully, and avoided the temptation to own the libs.
Though he has had some more recent opinions that aren't what I would have expected.
It's okay if the court is just another political body, because it is staffed by humans. And these particular humans are much more likely to hold deep political beliefs. It would be surprising if the justices weren't overtly political.
Any result can be given the color of law through some opinion. It is never impossible to achieve the opposite result using the same (or an opposing) ideological lens. The vagueness of statutes and the constitution allows opinions to written any which way. To say that any of this is merely interpretation is insane. Interpretation is most possible when the complex is reduced to the simple, not the other way around. So, opinions necessarily have to be additive. And that's were ideology comes in. A well crafted opinion can mask this somewhat, but notions like 'calling balls and strikes' are just spin.
Hat tip to Justice Sotomayor. Nice to know that somethings can still surprise -- in a good way -- nowadays.
However, even beyond the fact that judges do not sit to "help" people generally, it is very rare under the law that "help" does not come at the expense (monetary, usually) of someone else. The only legal questions that come before the Supreme Court have a "versus" in between the two parties. If a Justice or judge wants to "help" another, he or she can always reach into his or her own pocket.
I don't think her comments about helping people were wrt their judging, just their philosophy of life.
It's a shame that needs to be spelled out.
Would be nice if Thomas reciprocated by saying nice things about his colleagues. But from recent examples, he prefers to trash them.
One justice's wife seems to have wanted to hang Mike Pence and send a spear-tipped mob after many members of Congress.
Her day in the barrel approaches.
You got a quote where he trashes a colleague?
He had the whole thing where he said the Court was cool under Renquist and then started sucking...oh, about when the new chief showed up.
That was not very subtle, Clarence.
Whatever. She's the Herspanic face of white supremecy.
Very nice blog, this information very helpful for me.
Car For Sale In UAE
Very nice blog. This information is very helpful for me.
Car For Sale In UAE