Yes, the woman who said a “wise Latina” would be better on the bench than a white man has now decided there are too many of other sorts of people on SCOTUS in order to be, um, fair. If the Unwise Latina thinks identity politics should direct who’s on the court, what are the odds politics are also affecting her decisions? Very high, I’d say.

Via Fox News.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor says the Supreme Court needs more diversity, amid the politically charged debate about filling a vacancy on the high court.

“I… think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school,” Sotomayor, the court’s first Latina justice, said Friday at Brooklyn Law School.

However, she did not mention by name Judge Merrick Garland, a white male with a Harvard Law School degree whom President Obama recently nominated to fill the vacancy of Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative voice on the court. Scalia died unexpectedly in January.

She also told the audience that several of the eight justices are, like her, from New York City and that none has practiced criminal defense law outside white-collar settings. Sotomayor graduated from Yale Law School.

So, SCOTUS would be better if we made sure there was a socialist pagan from Santa Monica College with a degree in Social Justice on the bench, who would consult the Runes or the Oracle every time we needed a judgment about the constitutionality of a law. Got it.


This section is for comments from's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Maynard says:

    Justice Scalia made some troubling observations about the “diversity” of the Court in his Obergefell dissent. This quote is from Peggy Noonan’s op-ed, in which she quotes Scalia:

    Justice Antonin Scalia put his criticism in populist terms. His message seemed a warning to the court. “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers of the Supreme Court. . . . A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

    Those lawyers are “select, patrician, highly unrepresentative.” All studied law at Harvard or Yale, four are natives of New York City, eight grew up on the East or West coast, “only one hails from the vast expanse in-between.” Not a single Southwesterner, nor a genuine Westerner, not even a Protestant. The “unrepresentative character” of the court would mean nothing if its members were “functioning as judges.” But in this case they are not. This “judicial putsch,” Justice Scalia writes, is the product of “hubris”—“sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall.”

    That is to say, our underlying problem is that the Court, like so many other government institutions, has broken free of the restraints of the Constitution. We have to worry about this pack of fools because they’re tampering with our lives in ways they have no right to do. If the Court had stayed within legal boundaries and did its jobs, we wouldn’t have to worry so much and fight so furiously.

  2. Shifra says:

    There will be no true justice in this country until we have an Albino Eskimo on the Supreme Court. Because…diversity!

  3. Minnie says:

    Maynard – I agree entirely .

  4. Dave says:

    Her saying this should disqualify her from sitting on the court.

You must be logged in to post a comment.