Posted on 12/07/2021 6:52:13 AM PST by Renkluaf
Does Justice Sonia Sotomayor even read the briefs in cases before the Supreme Court?
I ask because the cases don't come any bigger than Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which addresses Mississippi's limit on abortion after 15 weeks. The Court is being asked to overturn the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I joined two other female physicians (a neonatologist and an obstetrician) in an amicus brief detailing advances in fetal science that have happened since 1973.
During oral arguments, Justice Sotomayor displayed abysmal ignorance of the most basic scientific and medical facts about developing human life.
The exchange came right after Mississippi's solicitor general Scott Stewart argued it was no longer appropriate to use fetal viability (the gestational age at which a prematurely-born infant can survive in an intensive care unit) as the point after which states can protect an unborn child from elective abortion. He said this was due—in part—to 30 years of medical advances. In a piqued, incredulous tone, Sotomayor demanded to know just "What are the advancements in medicine?" As Stewart began to list them, mentioning new knowledge of fetal pain, the Justice abruptly cut him off.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Does anyone know when we can expect a ruling for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization?
ignorance isn’t sotomyers natural state. Arrogance is. Consider her rulings and interviews. Its in what she says that this becomes very apparent. “Wise Latina” is the major tip off. Her wisdom is that she is opinionated and arrogant. If the court has been politicized its because of her.
The predictable result of ‘affirmative action’.
When confirming SC justices, if the priority is “inclusiveness” with regard to race, gender, or partisanship - then the priority is NOT a deep understanding of Constitutional law and founding principles.
The Democrats put morons on the SC just to be woke and inclusive.
Next June, just before they recess for the summer.
Do not expect a ruling anytime soon. We have justices on the Supreme Court who are intellectually incapable of applying ANY lessons in logic or scientific research to their rulings from the bench.
Justice Sotomayer is probably the most egregious offender of the whole concept of justice on the court, and no amount of persuasion or condemnation by others will ever crack that shell she had built up around her mind.
Deliberation is one thing, the adamant refusal to reconsider hopeless bias and close-minded authoritarian opinions is quite another thing altogether.
The MORE ignorant, the higher they can climb on the Democrat political ladder.
“Does Justice Sonia Sotomayor even read the briefs ...”
Very poor reading comprehension, laziness, ill temperment, leftist ideology...that’s what you get when you pick such an abysmally ignorant lousy nobody out of the crowd for such a prestigious position. Should never have gotten through senate. Then that rotten bastard Obama tried to appoint the scum Garland.
She don't need to read no briefs! The "Wide Latina" was not installed by the dems to weigh facts, only support their doctrines.
Sotomayor is a total mediocrity. Completely unworthy of a court seat. Classic case of failing up on a grand scale.
“Her [Sotomayor] wisdom is that she is opinionated and arrogant.”
No difference between her and Stacy Abrams, Nancy Pelosi, Gretchen Whitmer, Rochelle Willensky, Amy Klobuchar, Kathy Hochul, Patty Murray, and many other opinionated leftist politicians.
Developing reasoned points of view requires considerable time studying and analyzing information. Emotional arguments require no time and study, only “feelings”. Arrogance is also helpful for the bullying required to shout over those who provide reasoned points of view.
It is difficult to believe but she(just like Nancy and Joe among others) claims to be Catholic. Life begins at one point and one point only. Conception. Should you believe otherwise, Catholic you are not!
Perhaps even more significant that the scientific changes since 1973 are the social changes. Pre Roe v Wade, an out of wedlock pregnancy was a serious problem...girls were sent away...babies were secretly given up for adoption...reputations were ruined. No one cares anymore. Celebrities have babies out of wedlock on the daily, which is not to say that’s a good thing, but they are influential; “scandal” is no longer a justification for aborting the baby.
Pre Roe, contraceptive methods were few and information was hard to come by; now there is a plethora of safe and readily available contraceptive methods, information is easily accessed via the Internet, and no young female is embarrassed to ask her doctor about contraception options.
Arrogance is a derivative of ignorance.
It has nothing to do with being Catholic.
that is an interesting comment. I’ve never thought of it that way before but its true.
If babies are essentially dead until they are born, then how do they know they are gay in the womb as science has declared to be a fact.
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.