Author Topic: “An Act of Solidarity”: Sotomayor Calls for Lawyers to “Fight this Fight” in Controversial Speech  (Read 508 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,731
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has previously been criticized for making public comments that some viewed as overly political or partisan, including telling law students to organize in favor of abortion rights. This week, the Justice has triggered another controversy in calling for lawyers to “fight this fight,” presumably against the Trump Administration.In comments to a section of the American Bar Association at the Smithsonian Museum of African American History & Culture, Justice Sotomayor made a number of inspiring comments to encourage lawyers to pursue justice despite the odds or challenges:  “If you’re not used to fighting, and losing battles, then don’t become a lawyer. Our job is to stand up for people who can’t do it themselves.”

However, her comments then appeared to veer into more partisan territory regarding the current challenges against the Trump Administration. She declared, “Right now, we can’t lose the battles we are facing.”

The “we” left many surprised and concerned that the jurist was rallying the left as a type of constituency. She declared “We need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight. For me, being here with you is an act of solidarity.”

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/05/11/an-act-of-solidarity-sotomayor-calls-for-lawyers-to-fight-this-fight-in-controversial-speech/
The Republic is lost.

Offline mountaineer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 61,944
Quote
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
STATEMENT OF THE COURT REGARDING THE CODE OF CONDUCT

... CANON 3: A JUSTICE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF OFFICE FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY, AND DILIGENTLY .
A. RESPONSIBILITIES . A Justice should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.  ...

CANON 4: A JUSTICE MAY ENGAGE IN EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICE.
A Justice may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and government activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects. However, a Justice should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the Justice’s office, interfere with the performance of the Justice’s official duties, reflect adversely on the Justice’s impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below. ...
Obviously, these rules are subject to interpretation, but she may be walking a tightrope.
The abnormal is not the normal just because it is prevalent.
Roger Kimball, in a talk at Hillsdale College, 1/29/25

Offline Timber Rattler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,934
  • Conservative Purist and Patriot
Well this is impossible because John Roberts insists that federal judges in general, and SCOTUS judges in particular, are nonpartisan.

Flashback to 2019:

U.S. Supreme Court not politicized, says Chief Justice Roberts

https://www.reuters.com/article/legal/us-supreme-court-not-politicized-says-chief-justice-roberts-idUSKBN1WA08E/

Quote
U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking at a New York synagogue on Tuesday night, lamented the perception that the Supreme Court is becoming politicized and that the justices' decisions are guided primarily by their partisan affiliation.
Roberts' concerns about the impression of the court comes during a highly-charged political moment when the judiciary is getting hit from all sides. President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized federal courts and judges who have blocked his policies, while some Democratic politicians have implied that the court's conservative majority is motivated mainly by politics instead of interpreting the law.

(snip)

Roberts in November rebuked Trump after the Republican president called a judge who ruled against his policy barring asylum for certain immigrants an "Obama judge."

EXCERPT
aka "nasty degenerate SOB," "worst of the worst at Free Republic," "Garbage Troll," "Neocon Warmonger," "Filthy Piece of Trash," "damn $#%$#@!," "Silly f'er," "POS," "war pig," "neocon scumbag," "insignificant little ankle nipper," "@ss-clown," "neocuck," "termite," "Uniparty Deep stater," "Never Trump sack of dog feces," "avid Bidenista," "filthy Ukrainian," "war whore," "fricking chump," "psychopathic POS," "depraved SOB," "Never Trump Moron," "Lazarus," and "sock puppet."

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."  ---George Orwell

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,453
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Well this is impossible because John Roberts insists that federal judges in general, and SCOTUS judges in particular, are nonpartisan.

Flashback to 2019:

U.S. Supreme Court not politicized, says Chief Justice Roberts

https://www.reuters.com/article/legal/us-supreme-court-not-politicized-says-chief-justice-roberts-idUSKBN1WA08E/

EXCERPT

 8bs8

John Roberts is FOS!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien