We told you about Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor's truly amazing take on yesterday's decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions. In her dissenting opinion, she complained that "six unelected members" of the highest court in the land could throw a wrench in unconstitutional policies. She, herself, is an unelected member of that same court, mind you.
Help. I have been run over by the irony truck just by reading this sentence. pic.twitter.com/VbdPBtdEMQ
— Hooch (@CompanyHooch) June 29, 2023
Well, as you may have heard, the same unelected SCOTUS members who struck down affirmative action yesterday also ruled today that a Christian web designer in Colorado can't be forced to design a wedding website for a gay couple:
The Supreme Court ruled that an evangelical Christian web designer cannot be compelled to create a wedding website for a gay couple. | @JeffZymeri https://t.co/iyGAIKLFZk
— National Review (@NRO) June 30, 2023
While we're not legal scholars ourselves, we feel comfortable saying that this was the right decision, and an important victory for the First Amendment.
And, naturally, Justice Sotomayor agrees. And, naturally, her dissenting opinion demonstrates quite forcefully that she is woefully unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice:
Oh, dear. Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, falsely claims that the Pulse shooting was animated by anti-gay discrimination.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 30, 2023
How is she always like this? pic.twitter.com/hvT9J4HNrE
Because that's just who she is. Yes, she did defend Clarence Thomas that one time, but it wasn't nearly enough to overshadow her record of being consistently wrong on important issues.
The media and the corporate gay activist industry's reaction to the Pulse shooting really radicalized me against them. Just disingenuous, lying, demagogues immune to facts or reality.
— The Only Gary Johnson Stan (@colorblindk1d) June 30, 2023
They still fundraise off of it, lying about what actualy happened. https://t.co/YJ69D69RxT
Sloppy. At least use indisputable examples of anti-LGBT hate/violence (horribly, there are plenty to choose from) in service of your demagoguery: https://t.co/Ev5XlzdGZi https://t.co/5rJRbPHJx4
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 30, 2023
If you didn’t listen to the shooter’s wife’s trial, you may not know that Pulse was a target of opportunity after the shooter got scared off by security at Disney Springs, but hasn’t the Matthew Shephard thing been debunked for more than a decade. https://t.co/VfKnBTun2v
— Emily Zanotti 🦝 (@emzanotti) June 30, 2023
Well, then, clearly Justice Sotomayor wasn't listening to that trial. So maybe she shouldn't be invoking the Pulse shooting in her dissent. She shouldn't be invoking Matthew Shepard, either.
Matthew Shepard, too.
— (((tedfrank))) (@tedfrank) June 30, 2023
in her dissent today, Sotomayor cites the death of Matthew Shepard as evidence of a hate crime. Someone should let her know that Shepard was mostly likely killed not because of his sexual orientation, but that he was a drug dealer who was killed by another drug dealer. pic.twitter.com/MQMzQexQly
— Joe Gabriel Simonson (@SaysSimonson) June 30, 2023
Shephard doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. https://t.co/Bc32sXmkHx
— Gerard (@gerardthelawyer) June 30, 2023
Welp.
pulse and shepard twofer. actual alternate reality. https://t.co/3rt75eUjfs
— Park MacDougald (@hpmacd) June 30, 2023
What color is the sky in Sonia Sotomayor's world? We're genuinely wondering.
Her opinions seem to be based more on urban legends than established facts.https://t.co/cqQKhwUAYl
— Beorn (@Beorn2000) June 30, 2023
I’m beginning to think Sotomayor and Jackson form their opinions on touchstone cases, not from a careful reading of the law, but what they see on msnbc or read in the NYT. https://t.co/NERs9XvnjB
— EdAsante (@EdAsante77) June 30, 2023
We feel like there's definitely something to that.
Her dissent appears to be dishonest on several levels.
— J.G. Petruna (@jgpetruna) June 30, 2023
It appears that way because it is. Or maybe she's just not that smart. In either case, she clearly didn't deserve to get elected to the Supreme Court (see what we did there?).
Sotomayor has never had a close relationship to the truth.
— Piedmont Tilly (@Oscarthedodle) June 30, 2023
She’s a liar and a fraud.
— Nicola luccha (@NLuccha) June 30, 2023
A liar, a fraud, and a colossal joke.
They never even attempt to lean on the Constitution, ever. It's always "feelings"
— Bubbletrousers (@Bubble1Mc) June 30, 2023
Everyone's entitled to feelings, of course. But when it comes to the law, the Constitution must prevail over feelings every single time. Full stop. Supreme Court Justices should understand that better than anyone. And yet, Sotomayor just can't seem to grasp the concept to save her life.
Sotomayor, the dumbest person to ever sit on the Court. She's routinely wrong not just in matters of interpretation, but fact. https://t.co/2a6QUIVHTR
— Kevin Tierney (@CatholicSmark) June 30, 2023
Because she's terrible at her job. https://t.co/l96jOAZUtb
— Noam Blum 🚡 (@neontaster) June 30, 2023
Fortunately for Justice Sotomayor — and unfortunately for those of us who actually give a damn about the U.S. Constitution — she's not alone in being terrible at her job.
The liberal justices have made multiple huge factual errors this week. Embarrassing. https://t.co/PRQtJFg1vU
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) June 30, 2023
Expect that to continue for the foreseeable future. And pray that the conservative justices — and the Constitution — prevail in the face of those huge errors.
***
Related:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor just keeps racking up the hot takes over Biden's OSHA vaccine mandate
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member