Should Sotomayor retire?

[BabyBoomer50s]

Some progressives apparently think so.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/02/...-the-lefts-latest-retirement-campaign-target/

“I live in frustration ... To be almost 70 years old, this isn’t what I expected.” Those words from Justice Sonia Sotomayor appear to resonate with some liberals, but not in the way intended by the jurist. Some activists and journalists are beginning to nudge Sotomayor to leave the Court in order to be replaced by a younger jurist, much as was done to Justice Stephen Breyer in 2021 and 2022.

On CNN, journalist Josh Barro bluntly wondered why Sotomayor remains on the bench when younger jurists could be brought on to guarantee a liberal vote for years to come. He indicated that many liberals are frustrated with her for not stepping down: “I find it a little bit surprising, given what Justice Sotomayor describes there about the stakes of what is happening before the Supreme Court, that she’s not retired. She’s 69 years old, she’s been on the court for 15 years.”

 

[wizzard426]

Wouldn't that be most delectable? Trump getting another SC pick!

Let the butthurt flow, LIARberals!

 

[icanhelp1]

Some progressives apparently think so.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/02/...-the-lefts-latest-retirement-campaign-target/

“I live in frustration ... To be almost 70 years old, this isn’t what I expected.” Those words from Justice Sonia Sotomayor appear to resonate with some liberals, but not in the way intended by the jurist. Some activists and journalists are beginning to nudge Sotomayor to leave the Court in order to be replaced by a younger jurist, much as was done to Justice Stephen Breyer in 2021 and 2022.

On CNN, journalist Josh Barro bluntly wondered why Sotomayor remains on the bench when younger jurists could be brought on to guarantee a liberal vote for years to come. He indicated that many liberals are frustrated with her for not stepping down: “I find it a little bit surprising, given what Justice Sotomayor describes there about the stakes of what is happening before the Supreme Court, that she’s not retired. She’s 69 years old, she’s been on the court for 15 years.”

Progressive = Marxist, not to be confused with true liberals which in the democrat party are a dying breed.

 

[schism666]

Progressive = Marxist, not to be confused with true liberals which in the democrat party are a dying breed.

trump destroying your party is funny.

btw, progressives are not marxists you simple bastard.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Progressive = Marxist, not to be confused with true liberals which in the democrat party are a dying breed.

Maybe I should have simply used “Democrats” instead of “progressives.” Some Democrats still like to be called liberal (not to be confused with classic liberalism). Other Democrats prefer progressive. I have not observed any clear distinction in terms of public policy between those that prefer one term over the other.

 

[schism666]

Some progressives apparently think so.

Wouldn't that be most delectable? Trump getting another SC pick!

Let the butthurt flow, LIARberals!

Progressive = Marxist, not to be confused with true liberals which in the democrat party are a dying breed.

Maybe I should have simply used “Democrats” instead of “progressives.” Some Democrats still like to be called liberal (not to be confused with classic liberalism). Other Democrats prefer progressive. I have not observed any clear distinction in terms of public policy between those that prefer one term over the other.

you guys are dumb as fuck. lol.

 

[Chernosoth]

I have seen speculation that diabetes is affecting her mental ability. If she's not at her best, she may still be more capable than any new justice who would be appointed this year.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Progressivism: Seeking greater individual liberty with fewer restrictions on personal choices. Tolerance of minorities and GLBT. Environmental stewardship. Investing in the future. Investing in education. Building infrastructure.

Marxism: Government seizing control of all publicly owned industry and utility networks. Redistributing the wealth by forcefully confiscating large estates and capitol from the wealthy and placing it under government control. Government owns most housing, farms, and agriculture.

Two completely different things, which are nothing at all alike.

As for Sotomeyer, The fear is she could be replaced with another Barrett or Kavanaugh (or even worse, a Thomas or Alito); that is, a justice who is dismissive towards the Bill of Rights and the concept of personal liberty and autonomy. And who favors unchecked executive power but no regulation of corporate power (while paradoxically, gives the government carte blanche to rule over individual freedom with an iron fist.)

Thus, I can understand why she is reluctant to retire; as the whole balance of constitutional power and individual liberties are at stake here, should she be replaced by another extremist activist justice (of which we have far too many currently on the court.).

 

[YDB95]

I have yet to hear the first progressive (as opposed to people right-wingers think are progressive) calling for her to retire.

 

[HisArpy]

I don't care either way.

If she stays she'll be ineffective. If she goes she'll still be ineffective.

 

[icanhelp1]

Maybe I should have simply used “Democrats” instead of “progressives.” Some Democrats still like to be called liberal (not to be confused with classic liberalism). Other Democrats prefer progressive. I have not observed any clear distinction in terms of public policy between those that prefer one term over the other.

Maybe fascist is a better term. Any party that weaponizes the justice system to eliminate their political opposition and jail their opponent are fascist pigs.

But I digress. Sotomeyer by democrat standards has outlived her utility so just shitcan her. Democrats are a vile bunch.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Maybe fascist is a better term. Any party that weaponizes the justice system to eliminate their political opposition and jail their opponent are fascist pigs.

Exactly.

Which is why we need to fight as hard as we can to ensure that Trump NEVER returns to power because he has stated he plans to do exactly this! BUT at the same time, it is why we need to hold those accountable when they threaten our country, our Constitution, and the rule of law- which is exactly what Trump did.

Please, do not confuse holding a former leader accountable for their crimes, with "weaponizing the justice system." Did you not wish to see Bill or Hilary Clinton jailed for her shady shenanigans?

That is holding a leader accountable for their crimes. I trust that by now, you are smart enough to see the difference.

 

[John Doe]

Progressivism: Seeking greater individual liberty with fewer restrictions on personal choices. Tolerance of minorities and GLBT. Environmental stewardship. Investing in the future. Investing in education. Building infrastructure.

Marxism: Government seizing control of all publicly owned industry and utility networks. Redistributing the wealth by forcefully confiscating large estates and capitol from the wealthy and placing it under government control. Government owns most housing, farms, and agriculture.

Two completely different things, which are nothing at all alike.

As for Sotomeyer, The fear is she could be replaced with another Barrett or Kavanaugh (or even worse, a Thomas or Alito); that is, a justice who is dismissive towards the Bill of Rights and the concept of personal liberty and autonomy. And who favors unchecked executive power but no regulation of corporate power (while paradoxically, gives the government carte blanche to rule over individual freedom with an iron fist.)

Thus, I can understand why she is reluctant to retire; as the whole balance of constitutional power and individual liberties are at stake here, should she be replaced by another extremist activist justice (of which we have far too many currently on the court.).

I think the idea is that if she were to retire now (or at least very soon), then there would still be time to get Biden's pick on the court.

 

[icanhelp1]

Exactly.

Which is why we need to fight as hard as we can to ensure that Trump NEVER returns to power because he has stated he plans to do exactly this! BUT at the same time, it is why we need to hold those accountable when they threaten our country, our Constitution, and the rule of law- which is exactly what Trump did.

Please, do not confuse holding a former leader accountable for their crimes, with "weaponizing the justice system." Did you not wish to see Bill or Hilary Clinton jailed for her shady shenanigans?

That is holding a leader accountable for their crimes. I trust that by now, you are smart enough to see the difference.

Funny, I don’t recall Hillary serving time for mishandling classified documents, obstruction of justice by destroying evidence, conspiring with the Russians to create the Steele dossier.

And then there’s the obstruction of justice and weaponization of the justice department in a clear cut case of censorship and election interference by the Biden crime family.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Funny, I don’t recall Hillary serving time for mishandling classified documents, obstruction of justice by destroying evidence, conspiring with the Russians to create the Steele dossier.

Because she didn't do anything illegal . Her home server was set the same way Colin Powell had his when he was SS. Powell also is on record saying he advised her. She didn't start the "Steele" dossier, that was done by a group of Republicans. Yes she paid for the file,and the continued use of it. But it was made to by republicans to gather evidence on Trump.

And then there’s the obstruction of justice and weaponization of the justice department in a clear cut case of censorship and election interference by the Biden crime family.

Where, other than the fantasy in your head, you've not once ever shown a shred of verifiable evidence. You're worse than a broken clock, you're never even right twice a day....just a sad old white guy watching your world crumble and change since you're not in the majority anymore. Those people you've shit on for decades are now getting there turn at the ring.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

The Liberal Judges have a history of not stepping down beginning, at least, with Thurgood Marshall. As I think about it, it's kind of unusual for them to step down at all. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Funny, I don’t recall Hillary serving time for mishandling classified documents, obstruction of justice by destroying evidence, conspiring with the Russians to create the Steele dossier.

...

Funny that indeed.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Funny that indeed.

It is, you fucking retards keep pointing to it, even after it has been debunked over and over and over....*chuckles*

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Fuck off. You're just another board blight...

 

[icanhelp1]

It is, you fucking retards keep pointing to it, even after it has been debunked over and over and over....*chuckles*

It’s never been debunked, idiot.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It’s never been debunked, idiot.

So you're saying the Steele dossier is valid???? wow!!!!!!! I never thought you'd see the light!

 

[Rightguide]

Some progressives apparently think so.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/02/...-the-lefts-latest-retirement-campaign-target/

“I live in frustration ... To be almost 70 years old, this isn’t what I expected.” Those words from Justice Sonia Sotomayor appear to resonate with some liberals, but not in the way intended by the jurist. Some activists and journalists are beginning to nudge Sotomayor to leave the Court in order to be replaced by a younger jurist, much as was done to Justice Stephen Breyer in 2021 and 2022.

On CNN, journalist Josh Barro bluntly wondered why Sotomayor remains on the bench when younger jurists could be brought on to guarantee a liberal vote for years to come. He indicated that many liberals are frustrated with her for not stepping down: “I find it a little bit surprising, given what Justice Sotomayor describes there about the stakes of what is happening before the Supreme Court, that she’s not retired. She’s 69 years old, she’s been on the court for 15 years.”

Only after Trump is elected.

 

[Veroe]

Maybe I should have simply used “Democrats” instead of “progressives.” Some Democrats still like to be called liberal (not to be confused with classic liberalism). Other Democrats prefer progressive. I have not observed any clear distinction in terms of public policy between those that prefer one term over the other.

Then let me illuminate you. Progressives try to push Medicare 4 all, and the green new deal , or increasing taxes on the wealthy. Good examples of them would be AOC, Bernie, even Elizabeth Warren. Or Katie porter.
Establishment liberals like Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, Scott gottheimer and joe biden push refunding salt taxes, expanding Obama care instead of m4all, and setting guidelines and regulations for emissions instead of the green new deal.

You know, for a guy who talks politics alot you seem pretty clueless on the fundamental differences between your opponents. I guess it comes from years of painting dems like Hillary with the same communist brush as you would AOC I suppose.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Then let me illuminate you. Progressives try to push Medicare 4 all, and the green new deal , or increasing taxes on the wealthy. Good examples of them would be AOC, Bernie, even Elizabeth Warren. Or Katie porter.
Establishment liberals like Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, Scott gottheimer and joe biden push refunding salt taxes, expanding Obama care instead of m4all, and setting guidelines and regulations for emissions instead of the green new deal.

You know, for a guy who talks politics alot you seem pretty clueless on the fundamental differences between your opponents. I guess it comes from years of painting dems like Hillary with the same communist brush as you would AOC I suppose.

lol. When did I paint Hillary or anyone else with a “communist brush?”

 

[YDB95]

The Liberal Judges have a history of not stepping down beginning, at least, with Thurgood Marshall. As I think about it, it's kind of unusual for them to step down at all. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

As opposed to the conservative justices who always willingly step aside and go back to their day jobs after a few years? Yeah, no. There is no difference whatsoever.

Not to mention Marshall did step down, knowing his replacement would be nominated by a Republican (though I suppose he couldn't have known what an abomination that replacement would be).