The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Sotomayor Tells Law Professors She Felt "Shell Shocked" After Last Supreme Court Term
A brief report on Justice Sonia Sotomayor's remarks to the Assocation of American Law Schools conference.
This week is the annual Association of American Law Schools annual conference. One of the opening events featured remarks by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, moderated by Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley.
I was not able to attend this session, but here are excerpts from the Reuters report on Justice Sotomayor's remarks.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday told legal educators she felt a "sense of despair" at the direction taken by the U.S. Supreme Court during its previous term, during which its conservative majority overturned the constitutional right to abortion.
Sotomayor, who has dissented in major cases including the abortion decision as the court's 6-3 conservative majority has become increasingly assertive, described herself as "shell-shocked" and "deeply sad" after that term ended in June.
"I did have a sense of despair about the direction my court was going," Sotomayor said, appearing by video feed before hundreds of law professors at the Association of American Law Schools' annual meeting in San Diego. . . .
Sotomayor said she would continue to "tilt at windmills" and write dissents even though the court has moved steadily to the right.
"It's not an option to fall into despair," Sotomayor said. "I have to get up and keep fighting." . . .
"It may take time but I believe we will get back on the right track," Sotomayor added.
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
Why anyone listens to, or takes seriously, the "wise [sic] Latina" is beyond me. She's nothing more than a vote.
Do you expect Republican and conservative preferences to have a chance to prevail as modern America continues to develop, or are you just giving voice to the "lamentations of their women" stage for the culture war's losers?
No, I expect people to be fooled into accepting a repressive Democratic party led socialist dictatorship. And like all socialist dictatorships, eventually regret it.
She has said enough stupid ignorant and wrong things this session alone to be worthy of shunning.
How many vile racial slurs would it take from a conservative (or "often libertarian") blog or a Republican law clerk to be worthy of shunning, in your judgment?
If you ask me, what then-judge Sotomayor did in Ricci v. DeStefano was way worse than any number of racial slurs.
I figured you, like the Volokh Conspiracy, would be fond of racial slurs.
Because she puts the work in to ceaselessly write credible, substantial, supportable, well-grounded dissents. All of which are aimed at protecting your rights and mine.
While at the same time the Republican judges are out having "victory parties" resulting on majority opinions of judicial hackery in service to powerful interests.
Yeah, I'll listen to her.
A left-leaning leaning disciple of the administrative state, who never saw a regulation she didn’t like, is “protecting my rights” as an individual vis-a-vis the power of the state? Surely you jest.
She is good on 4th Amendment rights. Not so much in my opinion on anything else but I have to give her credit on 4A issues.
She's a vote. Her dissent in BAMN is a joke, but hardly the worst one in her works. And the "wise Latina" comment is disqualifying.
FTFY
It doesn't matter whose "interests" they serve, the majority opinions are actually based in the Constitution now, as they should be.
It was said at the time of her confirmation that she would not fit in.
Perhaps someone with NEXIS access can pull the quote.
Wow, the rarely seen passive voice segued straight into passing the buck. That's a high degree of difficulty and you stuck the landing.
going for what she personally wants rather than what the constitution says. The mark of an activist not a judge. Although the entire left wing of the judiciary is like this so maybe they can rewrite the definition.
Concur -
Shuttee & ricci - both explain her philosophy.
It's weird, because I follow these things pretty closely and I had no idea what "Shuttee" was. And so I googled it… and literally the only references to it are from you, citing it in comments sections all around the internet even though no such case exists.
I think I finally figured out what it refers to, but if you can't even get the name right, it's unlikely you've read it.
Maybe she can cry on Clarence's shoulder?
Curious
Which case was decided incorrectly ?
incorrectly based on constitution - not incorrectly based on political preference.
Good. Let's hope for more trauma this year.
Is it true that moderate Republicans in Ohio got tired of the far-right MAGA assholes and cooperated with Democrats to arrange a House speaker who is not such a deplorable wingnut?
Is that what is making you especially cranky today, Bob from Ohio? Right-wing bigots can't catch a break even in a left-behind, gerrymandered backwater such as most of Ohio?
Some Republicans similarly cooperated with all Democrats to arrange a non-MAGA speaker in Pennsylvania, too.
Watching five percent of the House-elect -- the poorly educated, bigoted element -- impose a foolish, antisocial tantrum on the House of Representatives should be instructive for anyone believing it worthwhile to try to reason with or appease hard-right Republicans.
You can't reason with bigotry, superstition, or belligerent ignorance. The sole sensible course is to defeat wingnuts, consistently and emphatically.
As Sotomayor implored us to let the expertocracy impose its emergency powers to, for example, compel little children to wear masks:
“We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators.”
That claim was grossly false, and in fact, COVID was pretty much a non-event, mortality-wise, for "children" (under 18 in my definition). Having struggled [successfully] to rescue all those children from respirators in 2021, it's no wonder she's "shell-shocked" from this year's what? I can only imagine the horror with which she's been coping.
good point on the disconnect with reality and strong connect with leftist delusional science
BlueAnon got to her
As so often happens here, I read an OP, I'm going to say something critical of a liberal (Sotomayor), I see the deranged right wing reactions in the comments, and I'm shocked back to reality.
The ability to generate and receive constructive criticism is a liberal concept. It has some space for it here but damn little.
Indeed. Except for Arthur, who simply calls his opponents bigots, all the racist-infantile-misogynist-deranged comments are from right wingers. What kind of twisted, frustrated, maladjusted personalities write these things? Why do they do it? What satisfaction do they get from it?
Come on man, "wise [sic] Latina" is good stuff.
I've been in the ideological minority all my life, with victories partial, and few and far between. You get used to it.
The next time the Democrats control the White House, and have more than a tiny majority in both houses of Congress, they're going to pack the Court. She should cultivate patience until then.
There is nothing that will make me an adherent of celebrity justice. The Supreme Court ought to do what it is commissioned to do: say what the law is.
The justices of the Supreme Court serve the court, and in turn, the people. The people are in need of good grounding in the law and intellect. The people are not in need of reports on the well being of the justices.
The media, the press, or whatever they wish to be called these days, appear to perform their work effortlessly. At the very least, the lack of effort shines through in the binary classifications of justices as "liberal" or "conservative," which is deeply stupid. The media ought to get with the times and assume all of the justices are non-binary. Of course, the media could read some history about the court, but that would be work, and work is anathema.
...and just like that, she illustrates why she should never have been appointed to the Supreme Court...
I feel a sense of joy at her sense of despair, along with grief over the state of our institutions and the individuals populating them.
Constitutional right to abortion?
I must have missed the section on the right not to bear children.
She does not abide by the law- she uses her position to legislate!!
When Sotomayor feels a "sense of despair", you know the court is on the right track.
Her reasoning and blue-anon derived hyperbole is downright cringeworthy.