521
submitted 5 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Monday she feels daily “frustration” as conservative justices move the country to the ideological right.

In an appearance at the University of California, Berkely School of Law, Sotomayor was asked how she copes with the consistently conservative rulings from the court.

“Every loss truly traumatizes me,” but “I get up the next morning,” she said in response to the question, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The crowd — about 1,300 students — applauded.

In her remarks, she criticized her “originalist colleagues” whom she said have come up with “new ways to interpret the Constitution,” changing rulings “that some of us believed were well established,” the Chronicle reported.

The 6-3 conservative court has had an eventful couple of terms, making its mark on some of the most consequential aspects of everyday life — from overturning the federal right to an abortion to ruling affirmative action in colleges unconstitutional.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] USSEthernet@startrek.website 109 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

NO position should ever be for life. It's ridiculous that we have 70/80/90 year olds running things forever until they die. They should retire and let the next generation take the reins. Age and term limits. Courts should not be able to be packed like this. Nothing should.

[-] Poach@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago

They should also probably be held to some ethical standards, but that's too much for the nation's most powerful court/justices. Nevermind the US code of conduct says justices are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

But who needs a functional government or justice system? It's just keeping big business from making even more money, and destroying the planet faster.

[-] USSEthernet@startrek.website 3 points 5 months ago

I wonder why we don't elect judges like we do at the local level. What were the founding fathers thought process on allowing the president to appoint them?

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The thought was that if they had to campaign and run for elections they'd be too swayed by political pressure to be impartial. As we've seen, having the Executive branch do it doesn't prevent this if politics becomes hyper-partisan. This is part of why Washington was opposed to political parties even existing. I think history has proven him right.

[-] raynethackery@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

That is political as well.

[-] Yokozuna@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Also, the fact that the reasoning behind this is because they don't want the justices to be pressured by partisian issues is ironic considering....

[-] USSEthernet@startrek.website 6 points 5 months ago

I don't see how anyone ever thought that a president appointing them would be bipartisan. Ironic indeed.

[-] sirboozebum@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Australian High Court justices have an age limit.

this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
521 points (97.6% liked)

News

21821 readers
5295 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS