From The “WHAT Did She Say “???? File for Feb 4 2015

So, THIS is what passes for a “wise Latina” ???  NO judicial activism ?  Only a leftist Obama appointed loon could say THAT with a straight face.

Sotomayor was picked for the high court BECAUSE she is an activist. From David A. Patten at


Justice Sonia Sotomayor: No Such Thing as Judicial Activism

Monday, 02 Feb 2015 08:34 PM

By David A. Patten

SCOTUS Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She was appointed to the bench BECAUSE of her activism, NO other reason was needed for the BECS to put her there. WHEN the “executive amnesty” case goes before SCOTUS, as I think it will, SHE MUST recuse herself.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor flatly rejected on Monday the view that any U.S. Supreme Court justices practice judicial activism.

Speaking Monday to a standing-room only event at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Fla., the 60-year-old justice was asked to give her reaction to those who complain about judicial activism on the one hand, yet want the Court to declare laws unconstitutional on the other.

“I think most judges have a definition of judicial activism,” Sotomayor said. “It’s a ruling you don’t like.”

Sotomayor’s assertion that no judicial activism exists — an article of faith among most conservatives — puts her squarely at odds with Justice Antonin Scalia, who has been critical of the trend toward interpreting the law in whatever way appears to attain socially desirable objectives.

The justice’s statements came at a sold-out gathering of The Forum Club of the Palm Beaches and the Palm Beach County Bar Association.

Sotomayor encouraged citizens to ignore pundits’ commentary, and to read the Court’s decisions for themselves.

“Read a decision where there’s a majority and a dissent. And what you will find out is that both sides always base it on the legal analysis. We don’t come to our conclusion willy-nilly or arbitrarily,” she said.

Sotomayor, who is promoting her best-selling book My Beloved World,” added that all judges have a “legal toolbox” they employ to render opinions, but suggested that each justice uses those tools in a slightly different way depending on the specifics of any given case.

“When we’re looking at a question, we’re ordering the use of those tools,” she said. “Some are more important than others, some don’t get used for particular reasons.”

Sotomayor, who was appointed by President Obama and joined the High Court in August 2009, said there is no basis for an allegation of activism.
“My colleague Antonin Scalia has just written a book on interpretive principles, and there are 800 of them,” she said. “And he has his own way of saying this is more important than that.

“I will tell you that any principle he says is more important than that, I can point to a decision that he’s written where he hasn’t done it that way,” said Sotomayor. “This isn’t because he wants to arrive at a particular answer. It’s because every law is different.”

No justices have been activist in their opinions, she said.

“In the end, we do believe in law,” she said, declaring flatly: “And there won’t be any decision you read where you will think that a judge is activist.

“Every judge is trying to do the best that he or she can to enforce the law as he or she believes it is written.”


So, the “wise Latina” says there is no such thing as judicial activism. REALLY ? News flash for you, Sonia: YOU. WERE. APPOINTED. TO. THE. COURT. BECAUSE. YOU. ARE. AN. ACTIVIST. How much clearer do I need to be ?

Your last sentence gives you AWAY as an activist. A judge should be enforcing the law the way it has been WRITTEN, NOT as you BELIEVE it is. We see how well THAT worked during the Obamacare fiasco with your Chief Justice, Judas Roberts.

Let us have a look at some of her “non-activist” decisions, shall we ?

Racial Discrimination

Judge Sotomayor’s most high-profile case, Ricci v. DeStefano, concerns white firefighters in New Haven who were denied promotions after an examination yielded no black firefighters eligible for advancement. Joining an unsigned opinion of a three-judge panel of the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor upheld the rejection of a lawsuit by white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, claiming race discrimination and, as part of the full appeals court, she declined to rehear the case. The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision in a 5-to-4 vote. Judge Sotomayor dissented in part in an earlier case, Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, finding that race discrimination had occurred when a school demoted a black child from first grade to kindergarten.

“The school did not give the black student an equal chance to succeed (or fail).”

—Dissent in Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 1999

Related Documents


Lawsuits Against Federal Contractors

An opposition memo on Judge Sotomayor cites her ruling in a case about lawsuits against federal contractors to claim that she is “willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution.” The case concerns an inmate who lived in a fifth-floor room while serving a federal prison sentence for securities fraud. He was allowed to use the elevator because of congestive heart failure, but when a guard had him climb the five flights, he had a heart attack, fell down the stairs and suffered an injury. He sued the company that ran the halfway house for the federal Bureau of Prisons. As part of the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor emphasized precedents that permitted suits against companies performing state government functions. The Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor, ruling 5 to 4 that only individual agents, not corporations, may be sued for such violations. Justice Stevens – joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer – dissented.

“Extending Bivens liability to reach private corporations furthers [its] overriding purpose: providing redress for violations of constitutional rights.”

(Bivens was a 1971 Supreme Court case that allowed some people whose rights have been violated by federal agents to sue.)

—Makesko v. Correctional Services Corporation, 2000

Related Documents



In a defeat for environmental groups, the Supreme Court ruled this term that the Environmental Protection Agency may use cost-benefit calculations to decide whether to require power plants to make changes that could preserve aquatic organisms. The case mostly concerned the meaning of a phrase in the Clean Water Act that requires the power plants’ cooling structures to “reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.” Judge Sotomayor had previously ruled that weighing the costs of the changes against the value of the organisms in dollars was not permitted by the law. Instead, the EPA could consider only what cost “may reasonably be borne” by the power plants. When her ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter, dissented, saying that cost-benefit analysis was prohibited by the law and pernicious in practice.

“Congress has already specified the relationship between cost and benefits in requiring that the technology designated by the EPA be the best available.”

—Riverkeeper v. Environmental Protection Agency

Related Documents


Workplace Discrimination: Disabilities

Some of Judge Sotomayor’s more prominent opinions on discrimination concern people with disabilities. In one case, Judge Sotomayor ruled that a law school graduate with a reading and learning disability was entitled to extra time in taking the bar exams. After the Supreme Court decided that people are not protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act if they can function normally by wearing glasses, taking medication or otherwise compensating for their disabilities, it told the Second Court to reconsider its decision in this case. Judge Sotomayor again found that the woman was disabled, and must be given accommodations, writing that test scores alone were not enough to diagnose a disability. Another case concerned a trucking company that rejected applicants who were taking some medications. Judge Sotomayor dissented from the majority, writing that Hunt, the company, had determined the applicants were “substantially limited in the major life activity of working,” and not, as the, majority found, merely “unsuited for long-distance driving of Hunt’s 40-ton trucks on irregular stressful schedules.”

“By its very nature, diagnosing a learning disability requires clinical judgment.”

—Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners

Related Documents


International Law

Some of her Judge Sotomayor’s most notable decisions have come in child custody and complex business cases. One case concerned a child of divorced parents who lived in Hong Kong. The mother had sole custody of the child and the father had “reasonable access.” The mother took the child to New York, and the father filed a petition for return of the child to Hong Kong. A custody order said the child could not be removed from Hong Kong without the consent of the father or the Hong Kong court, and the case centered on whether this clause confers “rights of custody” under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. If it did, it would require the child’s return to Hong Kong. On appeal, the court ruled the removal was not wrong because the father did not possess rights of custody. In her dissenting opinion, Judge Sotomayor argued that a broader interpretation of “custody” was more in line with the “object and purpose” of the Convention, and that this was how foreign courts had considered the issue. The question in this case, Croll v. Croll, is before the Supreme Court in Abbott v. Abbott. Another case concerned jurisdiction. Federal courts can hear cases between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” According to British law, citizens of Bermuda are “nationals,” but not “subjects.” A panel found, therefore, that federal jurisdiction did not apply. Judge Sotomayor dissented, writing that the Constitution used “citizen” and “subject” to refer to a range of relationships.

“The people of Bermuda would be undoubtedly surprised to learn that they are ‘stateless’ ”

—Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda

Related Documents


Second Amendment

Judge Sotomayor rejected a claim that a New York ban on a martial arts weapon (a nunchuka) violated a man’s Second Amendment rights, explaining the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. In this case, Maloney v. Cuomo, the court noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down parts of the District’s gun control law, did not invalidate this principle, and “to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” earlier Supreme Court rulings took precedence in the case.

“The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.”

—Opinion of the court, including Judge Sotomayor, Maloney v. Cuomo (2009)

Related documents



On the Circuit Court, Judge Sotomayor has been involved in few controversial issues like abortion. In one case, she denied a claim brought by an abortion rights group challenging a Bush policy that prohibited foreign organizations that receive foreign funds from performing or supporting abortions. Another case concerned the definition of “refugee,” which includes victims of coercive family-planning practices. The Second Circuit ruled that this definition does not extend to unmarried partners of women forced to abort their pregnancies. Judge Sotomayor joined a concurring opinion which said it was unnecessary to consider whether the definition extended to legal spouses, because this particular case dealt with Chinese men and their girlfriends, not their wives.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position.”

—The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush

Related Documents


Rules of Evidence

In 1999, for instance, she refused to suppress crack cocaine found by police officers who were executing a warrant that had been vacated 17 months before but never deleted from a police database. That kind of error, Judge Sotomayor said, did not require suppression. The Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in January, a decade after Judge Sotomayor’s decision.

“The [Supreme] Court held that evidence seized in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently declared invalid should not be excluded.”

—>U.S. v. Santa (2001)

Related Documents


Strip Searches

In a 2004 dissent, Judge Sotomayor seemed to be in agreement with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s observation in a recent interview with USA Today that female judges can be more sensitive to claims that strip searches of young girls are unduly intrusive. The majority opinion in the 2004 case, by two male judges, upheld the legality of some strip searches of girls held at juvenile detention centers in Connecticut. In her dissent, Judge Sotomayor wrote that the majority had not been attentive enough to “the privacy interests of emotionally troubled children” who “have been victims of abuse or neglect, and may be more vulnerable mentally and emotionally than other youths their age.” That was in line with Justice Ginsburg’s questioning from the bench last month in Safford Unified School District v. Redding, which concerned what she called a “humiliating” strip search of a 13-year-old middle school student by school officials in Arizona. In her dissent, Judge Sotomayor also emphasized how “embarrassing and humiliating” the searches of the girls in Connecticut had been. “The officials inspected the girls’ naked bodies front and back, and had them lift their breasts and spread out folds of fat,” Judge Sotomayor wrote.

“Our caselaw consistently has recognized the severely intrusive nature of strip searches and has placed strict limits on their use.”

—N.G. and S.G. v. Connecticut

Related Documents


These all came from the New York Times, NOT the most reliable source to decide who, and WHAT is “non-activist”. For her to utter this insanity is yet more proof she is not, was not, and NEVER will be SCOTUS material. Being an activist was her “claim to fame” before her appointment, and Obama is COUNTING on her to REMAIN so.

My fervent hope is for the continued good health of THESE guys :

From L to R , Judas Roberts ( if he leaves, Obama puts a REAL leftist on the seat) Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas (whom the left HATES) and Anthony Kennedy. One more Obama pick, say BUH-BYE to the rule of law.


CLYDE. “Wise Latina” my ass. LIBERAL Latina, no question.

Tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to From The “WHAT Did She Say “???? File for Feb 4 2015

  1. Hardnox says:

    Good post. Thanks for daylighting more lefty insanity.

    As you pointed out, saying this with a straight face should insult the intelligence of anyone paying attention. Judicial activism has been the hallmark of this admin’s appointees. Any other description is a flat out lie.

    It frustrates me to no end that these people swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution then turn around and invent some verbage that doesn’t exist to support a lefty narrative. The Constitution is not a “living document” it is a legal document.

    To that end, judges should be impeached regularly for violating their sacred oaths. Ditto for ALL elected and appointed officials that supposedly work for us.

    • Clyde says:

      Your thoughts echo mine, Boss. Thanks.

    • upaces88 says:

      Contrary to what most people believe the members of the Supreme Court are not appointed for life. They are appointed during periods of good behavior. Whenever a member of the Supreme Court fails to honor their oath it is the responsible of Congress to defend the Constitution by dismissing the offending justice.
      ​​Contrary to what most people believe the members of the Supreme Court are not appointed for life.. They are appointed during periods of good behavior. Whenever a member of the Supreme Court fails to honor their oath it is the responsible of Congress to defend the Constitution by dismissing the offending justice.…/to…/the-jurisdiction-of-t…

      • Clyde says:

        OK. Give me the name of the LAST SCOTUS judge removed for ANY reason other than retirement or death . There has been ONE, and that was Samuel Chase,removed in 1811, for “decisions that reflected his politics”. If THAT criteria were to be used TODAY, we would not have a Supreme Court.

  2. Kathy says:

    Of course, she’s an activist, otherwise O would not have chosen her. Her interpretations are what landed her this job, which she’ll have until death do us part. Another peeve of mine – how they’re selected and their length of service, but we’ll save that soapbox for another time.

  3. vonMesser says:

    IOt’s only activism if it goes against what the leftists want.

  4. Clyde says:

    Couldn’t agree more, Kathy. Got to be a better way.