Justice Sotomayor is a biased Supreme Court Justice who has a history (see below) of injecting politics into her opinions.
It was no surprise that during oral arguments on DACA that Sotomayor got political instead of following the law when she said this:
“That this is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives.”
The problem is that Justice Sotomayor’s job is to interpret the law as written. Nothing more, nothing less. She’s attempting to legislate from the bench and this isn’t the first time (see below).
The lawyers backing the DHS argued that DACA, put in place by President Barack Obama’s executive action in 2012, was not legal or highly likely to be illegal and it also would “hamstring” federal law enforcement from enforcing immigration law.
The bottom line is that DACA is not constitutional and benefits illegals while threatening the employment and educational opportunities of legal citizens.
“Wise Latina” Sotomayor has previously expressed bias and political beliefs favoring illegals:
President Trump got to the heart of why DACA should end in one tweet. The Supreme Court must rule that DACA has to go, but this will be an interesting decision by the “wise Latina” on the Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor has broken a longstanding rule of the court by being an activist judge like Justice Ginsburg. Will she rule to keep Obama’s “unlawful” DACA?
How is it that Obama can sign an unlawful program into law and Trump can’t put an end to it?
TRUMP TWEETED ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION:
The Immigration Law Institute’s Christopher Hajec says, “The Supreme Court has to look at whether DACA is lawful. What they are looking at now is whether Trump’s recision of DACA is lawful. Must consider lawfulness of DACA itself.
Looks very odd that President Trump doesn’t have the discretion to end the program that President Obama began in his discretion. That program was unlawful, to begin with. I think it’s very unlikely that the SCOTUS is going to issue an order reinstating what it believes is an unlawful program. DACA Is unlawful.”
President Obama never had the legal right to sign DACA, and he indicated so at the time of signing. But In any event, how can he have the right to sign, and I don’t have the right to “unsigned.” Totally illegal document which would actually give the President new powers.
This will be interesting because of Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s activist comments in the past:
JUDICIAL BIAS? LATINA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Declares Her Shockingly Racist View On Ethnicity And Sex When Judging
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” – Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor
As the mainstream media does a hit job on Donald Trump for expressing his view that the presiding judge in the Trump University case is biased against him because of Trump’s views on immigration, we have a RACIST Latina Supreme Court Justice who’s openly declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge makes a difference in their judging! So which is it? The left wants to have it both ways, but they’re being outed as total hypocrites! Unreal!
Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
AND THEY’RE CALLING TRUMP A RACIST?
WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.
This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”
The video was of a panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, and she was explaining the different experiences gained when working at district courts and appeals courts. Her remarks caught the eye of conservative bloggers who accused her of being a “judicial activist,” although Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, argued that critics were reading far too much into those remarks.
Republicans have signaled that they intend to put the eventual nominee under a microscope, and they say they were put on guard by Mr. Obama’s statement that judges should have “empathy,” a word they suggest could be code for injecting liberal ideology into the law.
Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”
In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case.
She also noted that the Supreme Court was uniformly white and male when it delivered historic rulings against racial and sexual discrimination. And she said she tried to question her own “opinions, sympathies and prejudices,” and aspired to impartiality.
Still, Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”Read more: NYT