Justice Sotomayor Renews Her Opposition to the Court's Ruling That Ex-Presidents Have Broad Immunity

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: US News and World Report/AP

Feb. 6, 2025, at 1:14 p.m.


LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said her conservative colleagues are risking the court's legitmacy with decisions affording President Donald Trump broad immunity and overturning longstanding precedents on other issues. In her first public comments since Trump began his second term in the White House, Sotomayor told a Kentucky audience that the court has gone too far, too fast on a range of issues.

She cited the Trump case during a lengthy response to a question about sagging public confidence in the court. Sotomayor issued a stinging dissent in that case, and she didn't hold back Wednesday night in discussing public perceptions of the court following its historic 6-3 decision on the immunity question. The court’s conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump in his first term, ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

“If we as a court go so much further ahead of people, our legitimacy is going to be questioned," Sotomayor said during the event in Louisville. “I think the immunity case is one of those situations. 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.”

In her dissent last year, which she read aloud in the courtroom, Sotomayor said the court's majority allowed a president to become a “king above the law” in its ruling that limited the scope of criminal charges against Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and efforts to overturn the election.

Read more: https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-02-06/justice-sotomayor-renews-her-opposition-to-the-courts-ruling-that-ex-presidents-have-broad-immunity

[JoseBalow]

1. She's 100% right, as usual

Though I would quibble with the part about "risking" and "questioning" the court's legitimacy... I believe that has already been lost. It's a question of how to regain legitimacy with those conservative clowns in control.

[riversedge]

2. why does usnews.com say 'Ex-presidents' when Sotomayor is clearing talking of trump NOW!

[BumRushDaShow]

10. They are just republishing an AP report

That was AP's wording.

But remember that the court's "immunity" decision that she is referencing, was done BEFORE he was re-elected (arguments happened in April 2024 with decision handed down in July 2024)!

[Stargleamer]

3. "risking the court's legitmacy". . .

Sorry, but that ship has already sailed.

[Pris]

4. I have no faith in 6 of the SC judges

[Linda ladeewolf]

5. I agree.

There is one thing though, there is the slender, very slender possibility that one or two of them may see what their ruling has wrought and change it, if possible. Slim hope , I know.

[LudwigPastorius]

7. ...at which point, Trump will...

appoint two additional pro-Trump Justices to the Court.

[Linda ladeewolf]

11. Yeah, probably.

When I think of what Garland could have done and didn’t do! Where is Merrick, anyway? Haven’t heard so much as a peep out of him. Take his millions and run, maybe.

[BOSSHOG]

6. Thank You Justice Sotomayor

And let us remember that more Americans voted against 47 then voted for him in 2024 and that the electoral college was designed by slave owners to protect the rights of slave owners.

[Bluetus]

8. AHEAD of people? WTF?

She said "If we as a court go so much further ahead of people"

In what universe could anybody consider creating a dictatorship completely above any law to be "getting ahead" of the people. That implies that is where we should be going, but the court is just going a little too fast.

I suppose she didn't mean it that way, but WTF?

It is not "ahead" of the people. It is diametrically opposed to the best interests of the people.

[reACTIONary]

9. She did say that. She also said...

... "And if we continue going in directions that the public is going to find hard to understand, we’re placing the court at risk.”

That seems to be a better way to make the point.

[Bluetus]

13. That's a little better, but not much

"in directions that the public is going to find hard to understand"

That implies that the public SHOULD understand why it is a great idea to create a dictatorship above all laws, but the public is just to dumb to get it.

This is the problem with so many progressives -- and I believe she is progressive-minded. They just can't bring themselves to state the truth simply and clearly. They hedge everything. It is John Kerry-speak. Kerry wants to do the right things, but Christ Almighty, he can't finish a single sentence without undermining any point he was trying to make.

Why can't she simply say, "This is not America. The majority opened the door to dictatorship, and we are seeing this President act accordingly now. The Court must correct this terrible error before it is too late."

Don't these people understand that the next institution Trump will bury is the Supreme Court itself? There is no independent judiciary in the countries Trump is trying to emulate.

[reACTIONary]

14. Reviewing the article, it appears that....

.... she just is not the person that you would hope her to be.

“I think that creates instability in the society, in people’s perception of law and people’s perception of whether we’re doing things because of legal analysis or because of partisan views," she said. “Whether those views are accurate or not, I don’t accuse my colleagues of being partisan.”

She said they “genuinely have a belief in a certain way of looking at the Constitution.”

“And I understand, in good faith, that they think that that belief better promotes our democracy,” she said. "But whether that’s true or not is irrelevant if people are feeling insecure in the changes that they’re instituting at a pace that they can’t absorb.”

[Bluetus]

15. That is sickening. Every word of it.

Look, I understand that there can be different philosophies. But this is not a fucking philosophy course. These people are enabling a dictatorship, and they are looking at it as if it were some esoteric law school debate with no consequences in the real world.

I guess I can add her to the Merrick Garland list of Obama's "safe" choices.

[reACTIONary]

16. Here is her dissent, in the particular case being discussed.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

It is all the way down, starting at page 68.

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.

[Bluetus]

18. If I worked for a solid week trying to write a less forceful way to say it,

Last edited Fri Feb 7, 2025, 02:48 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't think I could.

Completely out of touch with the magnitude of this decision. Liberals always demure because it wouldn't be polite to state the plain truth. It is a sickness that should not be praised.

Republicans understand this and they roll us every time because of that chronic timidity.

[reACTIONary]

20. I don't know, I thought the dissent...

... at least this first paragraph, was pretty forceful. I didn't read the rest. It's been characterized by some as "scorching".

I guess the rhetorical norms of the SCOTUS just aren't up to your expectations.

[Bluetus]

23. By Dem standards, it probably was "scorching"

That's the problem. To everyone else, it sounds like an apology.

Dems -- including SCOTUS justices, need to take some "fire in the belly" lessons.

I am kidding, actually. When a person doesn't have a fire in the belly, they aren't going to sound very convincing, no matter how many seminars they attend.

If Schumer is a 1 on the 10-point FIB (fire in belly) scale, that Sotomayor dissent might be a 2.5, generously. Our circumstances deserve a minimum of 8. AOC is a solid 8+ and Chris Murphy is bordering on 9. Crockett is a thrilling 8.5 that jumps off the scale at moments. Buttigieg is a legit 7, although he has a way of lulling Fox into thinking it's a 5, so he gets invited back.

Harris ran a gaffe-free campaign, but only reached a 6 a few times. She had an impossible task of trying to run hard without embarrassing Biden by comparison. I can forgive her that, but I can't understand why she, Obama, Bill Clinton and others aren't bringing the passion now that the only risk is in being too timid. There is no risk in sounding the alarm bells unless one is actually just trying to protect the rich donors.

[reACTIONary]

24. Oh well. No msg

[EndlessWire]

17. Well, I'm glad she

spoke up, in a manner that a USSC judge might cautiously use to oppose a prick like rumpy, but it's a little too late. I am reminded that there are 3 judges that want to do their jobs right, but the 6 are traitors to the law and need to go. In that sense, I do not trust a damned thing they do or say. Thomas is particularly corrupt, along with his wife.

[travelingthrulife]

12. Did someone wake up the Supremes?

[maxsolomon]

19. Sotomayor was never asleep.

The majority are quite happy with their decision.

[Bengus81]

21. That's OK,bought and paid for members of the SC will suddenly decide

to reverse that decision when we win the WH in 2028.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

22. Legitimacy? Those six don't care about legitimacy.

"Legitimacy" won't line their pockets, won't give them a cushy retirement, access to private jets and private resorts.