Skip to comments.Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor: ‘Sometimes You Have To Do the Unexpected’
Posted on 04/04/2014 1:22:24 PM PDT by Olog-hai
You know, its almost a life motto (Well-behaved women rarely make history). If you read the book (My Beloved World), you know Im very law abiding. But I make it very clear that, like all people, there are exceptions. I like driving fast. Im a pure New Yorker and I jaywalk. None of us is perfect. Sometimes you have to do the unexpected. [ ]
In the United States, certain segments of society played with quotas for a number of years. What ended up happening is that the larger population got angry. And the Supreme Court ultimately said that quotas were not acceptable under the US Constitution. I think that some of it is driven by the American concept that success should always be based on merit. The problem with that concept, I think, as most people know, is that success is not always about merit. [ ]
When the Supreme Court takes a case, its because there is a disagreement among the courts below. It means that the issues are not clear under existing law. All of that lack of clarity is usually around issues that are important to the societylike Obamacare, same-sex marriageand every decision we make is final. Every time we decide, even when Im in the majority and I think were right, you know that theres a loser. There is another side who is going to feel something negative about what has happened. And that makes this job harder. Once we decide, there is no more hope.
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
In case you want to ping the list.
So she’s an activist, on the SC, ,,,,,, isn’t that wonderful.
At least we have Roberts. /puke
How else can you keep the peasants cowering in their hovels?
Oh, boy. So, what should success be based on? Skin color? Somebody's idea of who or what should be successful?
The unwise Latina is a racist joke.
No, sometimes you have to do your job and uphold the oath you took regardless of your personal beliefs you stupid, left wing liberal b****.
The lefts scorecard for success is nothing but a misery index.
“Every time we decide, even when Im in the majority and I think were right, you know that theres a loser.”
There is so much banal ignorance conveyed in that single sentence, it’s astounding. A junior high-school debating team captain is now sitting on the USSC. Put there because of her nationality and despite her inadequacy and unsuitability for the job. What a disgrace.
I believe it was Scalia who once said something like “Sometimes the little guy isn’t supposed to win”
you mean like when Justice John Roberts inserted his own language into the ACA and replaced Fine with Tax? Is that what you mean Justice Sotomayor? You activist POS.
Her mind is so twisted by the liberal disease that she takes affirmative action as axiomatic, thus success is meritorious if it is gifted for no merit just affirmative action, as in affirmation of liberalism’s disease state. Affirmative action is ‘affirmation of liberal rot’ to/in the minds of once normal babies, put into action to ‘transform the society’. Or, as little barry bastard Soetoro put it ‘Transforming Americ ah’.
“Oh, boy. So, what should success be based on?”
Supporting the “correct” agenda.
It would be hilarious to see the liberals heads explode if such a thing came to pass
“...driven by the American concept that success should always be based on merit. The problem with that concept, I think, as most people know, is that success is not always about merit.”
We can tell that is true as that is how she got her job on the SC. It’s about who’s arse she kissed!!! That’s not merit!!
What a self-involved dolt.
Not a word about the Constitution being sacred in any way, notice. The Constitution is mentioned only once, too, with respect to the SCOTUS decision on quotas (not “unconstitutional”, but “not acceptable under the US Constitution”, which is weasel language).
The amount of “me, me, me” in the interview is (almost, i.e. if you weren’t already expecting it) astounding.
Once she started talking about being a “wise Latrina” I kinda lost interest. Race based wisdom doesn’t appeal.
We'll see about that.
The wise Latina just told us she’s all about picking a team. To my mind, our only hope is to prove Obama wasn’t eligible to nominate her or Butch. I realize there are those who will say, ‘but they were confirmed’ but they would never have come up for confirmation in the first place. Obama stole someone else’s opportunity to nominate.
And every time it isn't we should hold it up for contempt. Whether the success is based on political pull, family name or just dumb luck we should always state that the reason isn't for merit. Success without merit for some also taints those who are in the same group who did merit that success.
The left are more than willing to make those arguments when claiming that the majority of inheritances should be taken by the government because the heirs didn't earn that money based on merit. Odd, but they never seem to feel that way about their favorite family of drunkards and pill-poppers from Boston, believing that every new generation should exert even more power.
~~~that success is not always about merit~~~
You know, like being on the Supreme Court for purely political reasons.
This is great news since the “unexpected” from her would be to actually uphold the constitution. Unfortunately, that’s probably not what she means.
With a capital “C”
Noticed like I’d notice being hit in the head with a baseball bat.
No, she’s high on her own celebrity; being interviewed by a foreign magazine. What’s important is her feelings about exercising her power sitting on the court and her feelings about thereby producing a “loser”. Me, me, me. Wise Latina indeed.
Well, not anymore since Traitor Roberts went to the Dark Side. Now that 0bama et. al. don't follow The Law, no one else has any need to either.
In case you want to harf up your lunch.
THey are not the ultimate deciders. Future courts can overturn their verdicts. Congress can pass laws putting topics out of reach of SCOTUS. The People can say eff off to SCOTUS.
She could follow the law and apply the true meaning of the Constitution in her opinions. That would sure as hell be “unexpected.”
This is a dishonest, PC statement concerning the Constitution. Not that I agree with the Constitution's quotas, but the Founding States and post-Civil War constitutional lawmakers enumerated quotas as evidenced by the following clauses.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons (emphases added). ...
14th Amendment, Section 2: ... shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
While I agree that her success was without merit, I don;t agree that “Once we decide, there is no more hope.” While I temporarily lost hope after their terrible and lawless ObamaCare decision, she is fundamentally wrong. Government derives it’s powers from the consent of the governed. Lawless decisions squander that consent and the loss of consent can restore hope - it’s ugly but it will eventually work.
You know, she defines herself as a person with the opposite character traits that define a “judicial temperament”. A judicial temperament requires someone to be deliberate, careful, logical, not impulsive, slap-dash and emotional. Judges should be predictable in the sense that they will conform their thinking and decisions to established case precedent and principals of jurisprudence. In this sense, judges who consider being unpredictable a part of their role are stripping the rule of law of its central components: a known system of laws and a known system of interpretation and application of laws. The worst thing a lawyer has to tell his litigation client is that there is no way of knowing what the judge might do, something that happens all too often.
Can she name one unexpected thing she’s don on the SCOTUS? I can’t. She’s a wise Latina.
(She does have large, uh, tracts of land!)
Has she ever NOT voted in the expected liberal way? I can't think of any.
I think she was talking about affirmative action, and in that case she might have meant “legacy acceptances” or other reasons that have to do with pull of some kind, which do not depend on merit..
Assertive, but DON'T CALL HER BOSSY!
Assertive, but DON'T CALL HER BOSSY!
‘’Every decision we make is final,’’ declares Sonya Sotomayor of the Supreme Court, ‘’Once we decide, there is no more hope.’’ No more hope? Tell that to Dred Scott. Tell that to today’s African-Americans who are permitted to drink from the same water fountains as white people, thanks to the overturning of Plessy v Ferguson in the 1890s.
In fact, the Supreme Court constantly changes laws. Why else does Sonya Sotomayor think Barack Obama chose her for the Supreme Court except because he expected her to change laws according to their shared liberal ideology?
If Justice Sotomayor were paying attention to her job instead of spending her time giving misleading interviews to foreign publications, she would know that the Supreme Court is currently considering changing a law which she and the Supreme Court have already ruled constitutional — the Affordable Care Act. An affirmative ruling in the Hobby Lobby case would change the ACA by removing requirements deemed contrary to employers’ freedom of religion.
Nothing is forever, except maybe the ignorance of liberal justices, who have no reason to spend much time studying the law because they care more about advancing liberal causes than upholding judicial standards.
She couldn’t even make her marriage work after only seven years. How can we possibly expect her to protect the constitution for life!
I'm not defending Sotomayor or this interview, but that's a cheap shot. Clarence Thomas's first marriage only lasted 10 years.
I am always impressed by how unimpressed I am when these people speak (Obama, Michelle, Sotomayor, Clintons, etc). They attended the top schools and their intellect is astoundingly vapid.
Well, “Justice” Soderme.. got her job like any other politician...for her being a reliable partisan political hack, not for be qualified to be a judge of any court, let alone the Supreme Court.
How is she any different than say, Harry Reid would be, in the same job. Any political operator can wear the clothes and sit in the chair...and these days, too many do. For sure all of Obaba’s appointees do.
I guess I missed the part of the constitution that talked about the right to be successful.
It can be about EEOA or other fascist dicta
True, why don’t you retire?