521
submitted 10 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] hark@lemmy.world 123 points 10 months ago

Expand the court. "But republicans will do the same" you might say. To that I say "okay, let the court be a million judges to show just how shitty and ridiculous it is, let it collapse under its own stupidity. Besides, the conservatives already control the court, so there's really nothing to lose."

[-] scroll_responsibly 43 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Make every US citizen a justice upon turning the minimum age for a Supreme Court justice.

[-] Adalast@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Upon learning this in High School I was baffelled... There are no requirements to being a Supreme Court justice in the constitution. Simply that you are appointed by the president, and Congress confirms you. You don't need a background in law at all. There is no age requirement at all. There aren't even citizenship requirements. By the Constitution, Biden could appoint Gretta Thornburg to the Supreme Court, and Congress could confirm her, and we would have Justice Thornburg for the next 70-odd years.

https://www.findingalawyer.org/supreme-court-justice-qualifications/

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dhork@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

My favored tactic is to -- Bam! Expand the court to 11 in one year, than 13 in two. Nuke the filibuster if you have to.

Then Democrats can sit down with Republicans and say "You can let us appoint 4 justices to lifetime terms and wait until you get the Presidency and both houses of Congress to expand it more, or you can work with us to pass an amendment to set up term limits and other reforms so the SC is no longer a political football".

[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

The main issue is confirmations. If enough Republicans hold the Senate, they can stall confirmation until their guy comes into office and then stuff the court further.

[-] maness300@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Just ignore what they say if you don't like it.

If enough people do this, they won't have any power. They literally cannot arrest us all.

Look at what we did with marijuana.

That said, this really only applies to states' rights. California can disobey the supreme court without repercussion. Women can't disobey abortion bans in their states unless the vast majority of them band together.

The problem with that is, if the vast majority of them banded together then they could remove the bans in the first place.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago

What was it that "we did with marijuana"? Because there are a shit load of people in prison that would be happy to know that the problem has been fixed.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] USSEthernet@startrek.website 109 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 10 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 10 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?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Yokozuna@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 10 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 10 months ago

Australian High Court justices have an age limit.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 52 points 10 months ago

Not like she can do anything either. If she steps down now, Biden replaces her, demographics of the court stay the same.

All she can do is hang on until Thomas and Alito are replaced and hope that happens under a Democratic President

That will flip the court from 6-3 conservative to 5-4 liberal, but then the problem is the next 3 oldest justices are Sotomayor, Roberts and Kagen.

[-] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 62 points 10 months ago

The truly frustrating thing about all of this is that the courts composition can be changed by acts of congress. The republicans pulled some massive bullshit to get this court. Biden could run with the campaign promise to unfuck the Supreme Court. This would be massively popular. Just add justices to rebalance the court. It can be done.

[-] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago

As much as I'd like that, the new justices would still need to get approved by congress. Unless we get 60 Dem senators, we're stuck at 9 for the foreseeable future.

[-] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 22 points 10 months ago

I don’t believe the filibuster applies to judicial nominees anymore.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

It doesn't, but an act to change the size of the court would have to go through the House and Senate and we don't have the votes in either body for that right now.

Fun fact, the last time we changed the court size was to SHRINK it from 10 to 7 in order to deny President Johnson (no, the other one) a Supreme court pick.

After he got bounced and replaced by Grant, they increased it back to 9 where it has been ever since.

I wouldn't be averse to something similar, shrink the court from 9 to 5, elimimate the 4 most recently added justices. Yeah, we'd lose Brown-Jackson, but that's a small price to pay to get rid of Trump's nominees.

The court would then split 2 conservative, 2 liberal with Roberts as the swing vote.

[-] egerlach@lemmy.ca 17 points 10 months ago

IIRC, most legal scholars believe that shrinking the court doesn't get rid of existing justices as they are appointed for life. It simply prevents the appointment of new ones.

[-] modifier@lemmy.ca 15 points 10 months ago

Biden could run with the campaign promise to unfuck the Supreme Court. This would be massively popular.

It would be massively popular but I don't see it galvanizing new voters. Anyone civically engaged enough to understand the fuckedness of the supreme court was already planning to vote Biden.

[-] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 10 months ago

It's sad how true this is.

[-] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 3 points 10 months ago

He doesn’t need new voters, he needs to energize his base which he seems intent on demoralizing with his Gaza bullshit.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

She could take out one of her colleagues. She's right there in the room with them. They'd never see it coming.

[-] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago
  1. Wait for the conservative justices to side with Trump and say that the president has absolute legal immunity

  2. Hand Biden a gun

  3. ?????

  4. Profit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

She would have to do it after the election or they’ll pull a repeat of Scalia/Garland.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

She's a 69 year old type 1 diabetic...

You know what the average lifespan for a type 1 diabetic woman is?

68 years old...

She should have stepped down immediately and let Biden replace her. Instead if Biden keeps fucking up, trump could very likely get another.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

She does have the very best healthcare in the country though...

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

True.

But stress is something that needs to be avoided to help increase lifespan with type 1 diabetes.

And she's not shy about how she's doing

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/sotomayor-says-surprised-by-supreme-court-pace-tougher-workload

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she’s “tired” and “working harder than I ever had” due to the Supreme Court’s big cases, growing emergency calendar, and briefs from outside groups.

“And to be almost 70 years old, this isn’t what I expected,” Sotomayor said Monday during an appearance at the University of California, Berkeley’s law school. “But it is still work that is all consuming and I understand the impact the court has on people and on the country, and sometimes the world. And so it is what keeps me going.”

Just like RBG, she's taking it personal and thinking only her can "fight the good fight".

She's great and all, but we can find someone 30 years younger with a much lower risk of dying while Republicans have power.

This is bigger than any one person.

[-] Pips 3 points 10 months ago

No, they can't guarantee Sinema or Manchin so they don't for sure have 51 votes to confirm. If Sotomayor leaves before there's a guarantee she'll get replaced with someone else on the left, the consequences could be very bad.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

If she were more worried about the country than her own position she would have stepped down. And yes I know this throws shade on RBG. I'm still fucking angry she didn't step down before it was too late. It's not like she didn't have plenty of warning. I judge the justices by their actions and it seems they don't give enough of a shit. And now the rest of us pay the price.

[-] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 10 months ago

With the benefit of hindsight, we know that even with Obama in office, the Republican Senate would have blocked a new appointment for RBGa seat after 2014. Perhaps it was naive of her to stay beyond the age of 80, but not many were calling for her to retire in 2014.

It really only became apparent how fucked the situation became when Merrick Garland's nomination was blocked in 2016 and then especially when Trump was elected. Looking back, we can predict when the optimal time to retire would have been, but in the moment, it wasn't so clear.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 50 points 10 months ago

I was in DC recently, and I saw Ruth’s grave, and just wish she knew the legacy she created.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] maness300@lemmy.world 39 points 10 months ago

Eh, civil disobedience is making a comeback.

These fucks are going to learn real quick how the social contract is a two-way agreement.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

They'll have to push REALLY, REALLY far before they actually motivate most people to resist.

[-] nothingcorporate@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

Yeah, welcome to the fucking club.

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago

Damn, I feel like she opened up a lot more than SCOTUS judges typically do. That’s telling.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

You know... legally speaking, she is allowed to kill the other justices.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
521 points (97.6% liked)

News

23412 readers
2814 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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