Sonia Sotomayor, The Supreme Court’s ‘Voice Of Reason,’ Leads Dissenters
September 23, 2022
On May 26, Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, became the first Latina to lead the dissenting opinion of a case before the Supreme Court.
The case in question was Sonia v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, where Ms. Sotomayor and two of her fellow Justices found themselves on the opposing side of another landmark case before the Supreme Court: 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld affirmative action in college admissions and paved the way for universities across America to continue implementing race-based quotas in their admissions process.
Lead dissenter Sonia Sotomayor proves her worth
The Supreme Court is well-known for its conservative leanings on issues. Regardless of these leanings, many progressive justices hold liberal positions on a multitude of issues. One such judge is Sonia Sotomayor.
For the first time in her term as Associate Justice, Sonia was the only dissenting vote in a case against an innocent defendant sentenced to death. With dissenting votes being rare, this shows how much stock Sonia puts into her beliefs even when they’re not popular. Her dissent came from a concern that if given another chance at sentencing later down the line and chooses execution again; he will have exhausted his life.
Minority dissenters sometimes change history
Minority dissenters, who speak out against the prevailing opinion of their fellow justices and force dissent among those in the majority opinion, are not just ignored. They are a key tool to keep democracy moving forward. Sonia Sotomayor knows this.
Her biography reads like a revolution. Though Sonia came from humble beginnings as one of six children of a Puerto Rican immigrant and a Bronx factory worker with two years of a college education when Sonia became Chief Justice of her high school at age seventeen in 1968, and later graduated from Princeton University
summa cum laude with a degree in psychology before being admitted to Yale Law School, Sonia knew early on that Sonia would challenge the law and question everything about it to come up with new rulings.
A dissenting opinion: Why I would have voted against Trump’s travel ban
I would have voted to strike down the third revision of the President’s Executive Order (EO) barring various nationals from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the United States.
I cannot blind myself to the pain and discomfort felt by those barred from visiting friends and family in our country. And I am sympathetic to members of a particular minority group viewed by some as others who are apprehensive that they will face similar exclusion.
Nevertheless, the majority opinion is correct: The Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification for its decision to impose entry restrictions on countries with terrorism concerns, and it has done so through an adequate notice-and-comment process. We do not yet know how long this proclamation will be effective or when its constitutionality might be tested again.
We also do not know if there is any potential diminution of interest from immigrants among these groups because of this ban; perhaps immigrants from these countries make up such a small percentage of the total immigrant population that their absence is negligible.
Full transcript of dissent in travel ban case
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
The President of the United States possesses an extraordinary power to speak for a nation in moments of grief and loss. We are conditioned to stop what we are doing when it happens. But the presidential proclamations that stand at issue here can be seen for what they are: expressions of relief from laws that should never have been adopted,
given their racist content and intent–expressions that may live on as long as any other single thing this President does. It is not merely descriptive but also prescriptive; its goal is not to just reflect but instead to legitimize those aspects of our society that would deny rights and a decent life to those who come within our borders;
in short, these proclamations put forth an explicit view about who should be excluded–a perspective bluntly conveyed by the words The travel ban ensures a more stringent vetting process–but never honestly shared with the public or addressed with Congress.
Dissent is not an act of protest or obstructionism. As the Vice President puts it, What he’s trying to do is protect America. And I hope that future historians looking back at his Presidency will give him credit for his full record. But I cannot agree with today’s decision because it means there is no check on Presidential action so long as that action comes from one man acting alone.
As Justice Jackson said in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer, no one pretends that Presidential powers are absolute, and he reminds us that the accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. With all due respect, we do not need judicial clarity tonight when transparency could better serve the ultimate cause of law–the steady development of justice in society.
Justice Department Asks Supreme Court To Revive Trump’s Travel Ban
The Sonia Department on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order that limits travel from six Muslim-majority countries.
The department filed two emergency applications with the nine-member court: one to put a temporary hold on a lower court ruling that blocked part of the order, and another seeking further clarification of what travel is banned under the March 6 executive order limiting visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
Travel bans affecting those countries have been blocked by federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii since they were issued last month.
I Am Part Of The Resistance Inside the Trump Administration (Tweets)
We’re the quiet ones. If you’re like us, if you believe in truth and are appalled at disorder, then this blog is for you. We will speak the truth about what happened to America on November 8th. And that truth shall set us free.
So who are we? We are all part of a rogue White House operating from within to frustrate parts of (Trump’s) agenda and his worst inclinations. Some of us think that our primary duty is to save America from Trump. Some of us think that our primary duty is to save America from itself.
We disagree on some things; we agree on much more. We all believe it’s time to do something about what’s broken in Washington DC. And we believe we have a responsibility to do so now—for tomorrow may be too late.
Keep browsing Law Scribd for more updates.