”Traumatized’ Liberal SCOTUS Justice Makes Shocking Announcement

The Supreme Court of the United States is set up by the Constitution as the branch of government that adheres to constitutional law, making decisions not based on politics but on the premises outlined in the Constitution itself.

By definition, justices should keep their personal beliefs out of decisions and base their opinions on whether the question at hand is in line with the U.S. Constitution.

There is not a question of ‘right’ or ‘left” but of alignment with the document on which our country is founded.

But as the court has reached decisions of late regarding politically controversial topics, at least one left-leaning justice is saying that her personal views are being insulted.

Mediaite reports that Justice Sonia Sotomayor lamented the Supreme Court’s increasingly partisan turn to the right and opened up about the “frustration” she feels when she votes in the minority.

Speaking at a forum at the University of California Berkeley School of Law on Monday (in remarks reported by CNN), Sotomayor revealed the day-to-day toll that losing cases take on her.

“I live in frustration,” Sotomayor said. She added, “Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart. But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting.”

Justice Sotomayor seems to be on the Supreme Court for the wrong reason. She seems to think that personal and political opinions should lead decisions, not constitutional law.

CNN also reports that the dean of the Cal Berkeley law school noted that students “increasingly feel discouraged” by the Supreme Court.

What would be the cause of such discouragement? Either a decision aligns with the Constitution or it does not.

“How can you look at those people and say that you’re entitled to despair?” Sotomayor replied. “You’re not. I’m not. Change never happens on its own. Change happens because people care about moving the arc of the universe toward justice, and it can take time and it can take frustration.”

It sounds like Sotomayor is on a mission to “change” the Constitution of the United States.

Mediaite continues that Sotomayor has written some scathing minority opinions expressing her dissatisfaction. In one case last term in which the Court sided with a web designer who refused to promote gay weddings, Sotomayor wrote, “The immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.”

What? The decision clearly stated that a small business owner has the right to accept or refuse business based on his or her personal beliefs, especially when there are other businesses that a customer may deal with instead.

The comment by the justice glosses over the freedom of the individual, a hallmark of the U.S. Constitution, which is one of the reasons oppressed people have emigrated to this country. If a SCOTUS decision aligns with constitutional directives, no one one the bench should be “traumatized,” but rather the decision should be expected.

SCOTUS ruled in 2023 that a web designer has a First Amendment right to refuse to create sites for same-sex weddings, despite a state law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. The ruling was 6-3.

Mediaite goes on to say that Sotomayor has, however, spoken glowingly about her conservative colleagues. She has repeatedly praised embattled Justice Clarence Thomas, and at Monday night’s event, she talked about regularly passing notes with Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Decisions by the court in 2023 range from a 6-3 ruling that race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard, a private institution, and the University of North Carolina, a public institution, were unlawful to a ruling on student loans, which said that the Biden administration’s plan to wipe out more than $400 billion in student debt was not lawful as it was not authorized by Congress.

The New York Times reports that the court also rejected a legal theory that would have given state legislatures largely unchecked power to set the rules for federal elections with a 6-3 ruling.

The court also ruled that Alabama’s congressional voting map was not fair to black voters, as the map had a single district where black voters made up the majority.

In a 7-2 decision, SCOTUS upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act, a 1978 law that seeks to keep Native American children with their tribes and preserve their heritage. The ruling, however, did not resolve the question of whether or not the law discriminated against non-Native families in a way that would be race discrimination.

In the case of a postal worker who refused to work on Sundays, the court decided 9-0 that employees must make accommodations for workers’ religious practices.

Other decisions on environmental protection, animal cruelty, interstate commerce, and fair use of copyrighted works were in which the court was split.

The Scope of Tech Platforms’ Liability Shield and Tech Platforms and Terrorism were 9-0 decisions in which the SCOTUS were in unison.

Facebook Comments