Sotomayor’s intellectual limitations
on display in the oral arguments over
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
American Thinker,
by
Patricia McCarthy
Original Article
Posted By: DW626,
12/4/2021 6:06:33 AM
For anyone paying attention to the abortion rights case just argued before the Supreme Court, it would be hard to miss the deep emotional passion of Justice Sotomayor in defense of Roe v. Wade. The justices heard arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health over a Mississippi law that prohibits termination of pregnancies after 15 weeks. Lower courts have found the ban plainly unconstitutional due to the half century of legal precedent since Roe and put it on hold. While hardly alone in her knee-jerk attachment to the faux constitutionality of Roe, neither she nor the other liberals on the Court can address
Reply 1 - Posted by:
ByteGuru 12/4/2021 6:23:13 AM (No. 996537)
Ah yes, the Wide Latina ... she is there because she checks several boxes: female, minority, etc. Intellectual robustness was not one of the boxes.
56 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
RCFLyer98 12/4/2021 6:32:04 AM (No. 996543)
Bbbbbuttt . . . Obama, you know, old jug ears described her as a "wise Latina". Remember. As poster #1 said, she checked several boxes . . . gotta be politically correct you know?
35 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
NYbob 12/4/2021 6:50:30 AM (No. 996551)
She is very limited as far as intelligence or common sense, but she has a deep well of smug hate for anyone who challenges her weird world. Just like every raging liberal I know.
56 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 12/4/2021 7:09:28 AM (No. 996559)
Another triumph of affirmative action.
44 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
5 handicap 12/4/2021 7:29:00 AM (No. 996572)
FTA: ” Sotomoyar asked “What are the advancements in medicine?” The Attorney should have said: That's not the stupidest question I've ever heard, but it's definitely in the top ten! Wise Latina my A**!
36 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Finally50 12/4/2021 7:35:35 AM (No. 996575)
#2 - It wasn't Obama who described her as a 'wise latina' - that is how she described herself in a famous 2001 speech.
28 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
mifla 12/4/2021 7:57:54 AM (No. 996587)
All her questions/statements were basically pro-choice bumper stickers. Not a legal argument in sight.
22 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
philsner 12/4/2021 8:05:58 AM (No. 996593)
You cannot judge a case if your conclusion has been predetermined.
18 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Hazymac 12/4/2021 8:20:01 AM (No. 996604)
FTA: "While hardly alone in her knee-jerk attachment to the faux constitutionality of Roe, neither she [Sotomayor] nor the other liberals on the Court can address any relevant text in the Constitution that supports that 1973 decision. That would be because there isn’t any. All that clever stuff about emanations and penumbras was wholly without constitutional basis."
My Vanderbilt class in Constitutional Interpretation, one of the most demanding and time consuming courses one could take, studied the entire case of Roe v. Wade, with majority opinion (by Justice Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee) including all concurrences and dissents, in whole or in part. My professor, who was sympathetic to the decision's sense but not to its legal reasoning, practically tore his hair at the legal reasoning, which was nonexistent, pure penumbra. If a decision is based on no constitutional principles, it will always be ripe for overturning.
The same thing happened in the landmark 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education. Chief Justice Earl Warren wanted, and held out, for a unanimous decision. Eventually the other eight justices went along, and voted 9-0. But the decision was not fundamentally based on legal principles; it was based on sociology. Bad sociology. The Court should do better than that.
IIRC, Justice Sotomayor identified herself by tautology, dubbing herself a "wise Latina woman." She could have dropped the "woman." All Latinas I know are female. Their brothers are Latinos.
23 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
udanja99 12/4/2021 8:23:42 AM (No. 996606)
I haven’t been following this case because I’m teaching at a seminar so I don’t know if it has been done, but I hope that the pro-life attorneys are showing those ultrasounds and face photos to the judges. Then let that buffoon tell the court that they are not human beings with inalienable rights.
Our daughter has given us two grandchildren in the last 21 months and I was there for the 3-D ultrasounds. They are truly amazing. Both pregnancies were “unplanned” but our daughter, herself being adopted and not aborted, chose life. I cannot imagine the evil which would have them dismembered and thrown into a bag tagged as “medical waste”.
Isn’t it interesting that the women who rage the most about the right to kill the unborn (Sotomayor and Kagan among other lesbians) are the very women who will never need to exercise that “right”?
33 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
lakerman1 12/4/2021 8:24:49 AM (No. 996609)
When Sotomayor was nominated for the Supreme Court, I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. I thought I saw glimmers of intelligence in her, as well as a capacity for rational thinking.
I was wrong.
26 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Strike3 12/4/2021 9:30:27 AM (No. 996667)
#6 remembers as I do. When somebody describes her/him/itself as "wise" you can bet on the opposite. It was only a matter of time. Obama saved all of the favorable adjectives for himself.
14 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
hershey 12/4/2021 10:03:58 AM (No. 996706)
Exactly where in the Constitution does it state you are allowed to kill your unborn baby? I've not found it yet...and I won't....and we wonder why it seems God has forsaken this country and it is going down an evil path...immorality, killings, incest and the whole lot of it...
11 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
FLCracker 12/4/2021 10:34:02 AM (No. 996744)
The best reason to get rid of Roe vs Wade is that it is no longer relevant.
I was a young teenage girl during the lead-up to RvW. In that world, a pregnant woman out-of-wedlock was ostracized, discriminated against for employment, both for being pregnant and being "no better than she should be". High-schoolers were immediately kicked out of school and pretty much disappeared, except in whispered gossip. There was next-to-no support system for them during pregnancy or as a single mother, and the child itself would bear its mother's sin.
In other words, unwed pregnancy was a crime punished by confinement with child.
Compare that world to today. Single motherhood is praised and single mothers are seen as heroes. There are extensive government programs, at all levels, to help both mother and child. There is no longer any stigma to being born out-of-wedlock. Also now, with Baby Moses laws, a woman can easily pass on the responsibility for a baby she cannot, or will not, care for.
A woman is no longer sentenced to motherhood for 15-18 years.
There is no longer any reason, socially, why a woman NEEDS to have an abortion, guaranteed by Federal law.
And with advancements in birth control, no reason to be pregnant in the first place.
18 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
MickTurn 12/4/2021 10:35:37 AM (No. 996745)
Soto is full of it, there is NOTHING supporting Roe in the Constitution, PERIOD!
6 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Gordon Mills 12/4/2021 10:41:48 AM (No. 996753)
#9, What's the word for a trans Latin?
6 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 12/4/2021 12:04:56 PM (No. 996839)
The 'wide' Latina must have reached the Peter Principle when she entered the first grade. Have mercy that woman is stupid along with very naive. There are people like sleazy politicians and judges that I would avoid just because I wouldn't want them to infect or rub off on me this would be that kind of person. We are all born ignorant but to remain that way is by choice but Sotomayor is a liberal and a good one at that.
5 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Italiano 12/4/2021 12:08:41 PM (No. 996845)
To those who believe that Kamala Harris is far too stupid, obnoxious and utterly unqualified for a desperation Biden SCOTUS nomination, I give you...The Wide Latina.
5 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
DVC 12/4/2021 1:32:45 PM (No. 996935)
Another example of the divergence from a meritocracy. Putting mediocre folks into important positions because of their sex or skin color is a recipe for a steady slide into disaster.
One of Britain's most fundamental, intractable problems as a society has been their relentless, destructive, hard core, totally blind class structure where the dimmest fool, as long as he "went to the right schools" and "was from a prominent family" could be in charge of an army or a huge business.....and run them into the ground by their dimbulb incompetence propped up by endless arrogance because "I went to Eaton" and "I'm the 12 Earl of Dogpatch". The Prince Charles group of royals are a prime example. Charles is clearly a well trained idiot, and his children don't seem much better. Elizabeth II seemed to be the last remaining repository of brains in the whole royal family. And that is all too common across Britain for a VERY long time.
We are doing it based on sex and race, not class - but the end result is the same. Either have the most capable people in positions of influence and leadership, or fail as a society, as a people, as a country.
1 person likes this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
doctorfixit 12/4/2021 5:15:10 PM (No. 997128)
Stupidest Supremes in recent history - The Why? Sluttina and her fat lesbian sidekick Kagan.
1 person likes this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
FLCracker 12/4/2021 10:54:05 PM (No. 997352)
#16, I do believe the Latin for "trans" is .... "trans."
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "DW626"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)