Crybaby throwing tantrum again.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.c...l-immunity-decision/

By Cristina Laila | Feb. 7, 2025 5:00 pm

Far-left Justice Sonia Sotomayor lashed out at the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in first public remarks since President Trump took office last month.

The Hill reported:

In her first public remarks since President Trump took office about two weeks ago, Sotomayor said she worried the Supreme Court has departed too far from public sentiment, when asked about dwindling public confidence in the court.

“If we as a court go so much further ahead of people, our legitimacy is going to be questioned,” Sotomayor told an audience in Kentucky on Wednesday evening.

“I think the immunity case is one of those situations,” she continued. “I don’t think that Americans have accepted that anyone should be above the law in America. Our equality as people was the foundation of our society and of our Constitution.”

“I think my court would probably gather more public support if it went a little more slowly in undoing precedent,” she said.


Last July, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.

Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts, according to the high court.

Sotomayor proved how stupid she is in her hysterical dissent. “The President is now a king above the law,” Sotomayor said as she echoed Judge Florence Pan’s SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical.

“Orders the Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power?” Immune,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Sotomayor said (she was probably crying as she dissented).

The Court’s majority absolutely torched Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberal justices for fearmongering, ignoring the Constitution, and ignoring the separation of powers.

“As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today — conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the first instance” whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority.”

Chief Roberts slapped down Sotomayor for ignoring the Constitution.

“Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Post, at 9. Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence. Coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the Court has rendered the President “above the law.”” Roberts wrote.

“The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’” Roberts wrote.

Roberts said the Framers did not intend to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers in the hands of prosecutors.

“The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors,” Roberts wrote.

OUCH.

That’s rich. Sotomayor is worried about credibility? The only justice less credible than Sotomayor is Ketanji Jumanji Brown-Simpson.

She should teach them a lesson and resign.

That’ll show them.

quote:

she worried the Supreme Court has departed too far from public sentiment,

What does a court, any court, have to do with public sentiment. It is about law not politics or feelings.

^^^ That's what the crybaby does. It's all about sentiment and feelings.

quote:

“I don’t think that Americans have accepted that anyone should be above the law in America. Our equality as people was the foundation of our society and of our Constitution.”

Above the law, you say?

Like, say, fauci, the biden family, and all these other weasels getting presidential pardons from the Potatus in the last few days of 'his' presidency?

You mean, above the law like that?



Moron.

quote:

“Orders the Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power?” Immune,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

DEI in action, guys.

The President cannot unilaterally order the murder of an American citizen on American soil. Much less get the job done by DEVGRU.

ETA: A point to clarify, while there are federal statues barring killing people, the vast majority of murder laws and convictions are in state court, and as of now, no President had been held immune from state prosecution. See Clinton and President Trump as examples.

Now one President that I’m aware of did order the extra-legal murder of an American citizen, Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki, outside the US. That same President authorized a second attack a few days later that killed alAwaki’s 16 yo, American citizen son.

That President was Barrack Obama, in 2011. He was never brought to trial. Biden was VP. He was never held accountable.

So, Justits DEIpshit, the real precedent pre-dates President Trump by a fair margin, don’t it?

And shed no tears for the father - he was an Islamofascist of the first order. But there was zero due process in his killing, and so far as I know no reason for killing the son.

Wise latina?

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:

quote:

she worried the Supreme Court has departed too far from public sentiment,

What does a court, any court, have to do with public sentiment. It is about law not politics or feelings.

She’s a poorly educated libtard.

I expect nothing less from a DEI appointment.

A while back local bookstore announced Sotomayor will appear for a book signing. Apparently had something publish, maybe on a book tour. Then couple of days before the "event" Sotomayer was looking for an affirmation that a certain number of books would be purchased. Unless a certain number would be sold she wouldn't show. Guess she likes money.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Wise latina?

The very same, “wise latina” opined that her parents “migrated” to the US.
No they didn’t you fucking shithead. They just moved here!

She will retire under PDJT and he will get another SCOTUS pick. The Left will hate her because she could have given that pick to Biden. Deja Vu.

I’m sure she was outraged by Biden’s pardon list… right?

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
She will retire under PDJT and he will get another SCOTUS pick.
<snip>

We can hope. Far from certain.

^^^^ She'll hang on to her dear life, just like RBG did, hoping for 48th to be a Dem. But, she must have forgotten about JD.

I doubt she can spell JD. And I’m willing to bet she’s curious why she is always writing JD after her name.

Wise is laughable.

What's with the recent media exposure of our effete governor, the raging CAIR director, and now a DEI appointment Supreme Court justice drawing a negative leftist light on Kentucky? Aside from small areas of Louisville and Lexington the state is moderate to right.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
In her first public remarks since President Trump took office about two weeks ago, Sotomayor said she worried the Supreme Court has departed too far from public sentiment, ...

You stupid, ignorant, DEI cow: The purpose of SCOTUS is to judge based upon Constitutional law, not public sentiment

I don't think she is capable of handling anything above traffic court, and that may be too generous.

Come guys, she’s not DEI. She’s OG AA (affirmative action). She readily admits that’s how she got into Princeton in 1972.