U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Monday she feels daily “frustration” as conservative justices move the country to the ideological right.

In an appearance at the University of California, Berkely School of Law, Sotomayor was asked how she copes with the consistently conservative rulings from the court.

“Every loss truly traumatizes me,” but “I get up the next morning,” she said in response to the question, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The crowd — about 1,300 students — applauded.

In her remarks, she criticized her “originalist colleagues” whom she said have come up with “new ways to interpret the Constitution,” changing rulings “that some of us believed were well established,” the Chronicle reported.

The 6-3 conservative court has had an eventful couple of terms, making its mark on some of the most consequential aspects of everyday life — from overturning the federal right to an abortion to ruling affirmative action in colleges unconstitutional.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    151
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    Expand the court. “But republicans will do the same” you might say. To that I say “okay, let the court be a million judges to show just how shitty and ridiculous it is, let it collapse under its own stupidity. Besides, the conservatives already control the court, so there’s really nothing to lose.”

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        10 months ago

        Upon learning this in High School I was baffelled… There are no requirements to being a Supreme Court justice in the constitution. Simply that you are appointed by the president, and Congress confirms you. You don’t need a background in law at all. There is no age requirement at all. There aren’t even citizenship requirements. By the Constitution, Biden could appoint Gretta Thornburg to the Supreme Court, and Congress could confirm her, and we would have Justice Thornburg for the next 70-odd years.

        https://www.findingalawyer.org/supreme-court-justice-qualifications/

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      My favored tactic is to – Bam! Expand the court to 11 in one year, than 13 in two. Nuke the filibuster if you have to.

      Then Democrats can sit down with Republicans and say “You can let us appoint 4 justices to lifetime terms and wait until you get the Presidency and both houses of Congress to expand it more, or you can work with us to pass an amendment to set up term limits and other reforms so the SC is no longer a political football”.

      • Butt Pirate@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Lol they’d rather take the L and blame Democrats for the next 40 years than dare limit their own power.

    • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      The main issue is confirmations. If enough Republicans hold the Senate, they can stall confirmation until their guy comes into office and then stuff the court further.

    • maness300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Just ignore what they say if you don’t like it.

      If enough people do this, they won’t have any power. They literally cannot arrest us all.

      Look at what we did with marijuana.

      That said, this really only applies to states’ rights. California can disobey the supreme court without repercussion. Women can’t disobey abortion bans in their states unless the vast majority of them band together.

      The problem with that is, if the vast majority of them banded together then they could remove the bans in the first place.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        What was it that “we did with marijuana”? Because there are a shit load of people in prison that would be happy to know that the problem has been fixed.

        Edit: lol at this being controversial. Just to clarify: we haven’t fixed shit with respect to cannabis. We’ve barely put a band-aid on the problem. Yes I’m glad some states have explicitly gone against federal law, but you’re ignorant as fuck if you think we fixed the problem in any way.

        • maness300@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Marijuana is still illegal federally but states just ignore it.

          I’m downvoting you because this legitimately should not have to be said.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I’m aware. You didn’t answer my question.

            Edit: maybe someone who downvoted can point out to me where they explain how we’ve solved the cannabis problems in the US. Because we definitely fucking haven’t. A handful of states literally breaking federal law isn’t a solution.

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                You really didn’t answer me though… You really think we’ve solved the cannabis issue in the US? What world do you live in?

                • maness300@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Ahh, there’s the misunderstanding.

                  I never said we “solved” the cannabis issue. If you disagree, please quote where you think otherwise.

                  I stand by my point. You need to improve your reading comprehension.

                  • prole@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    You said “look at what we did with marijuana,” and the context was very clear.

                    So I asked what we did with marijuana that is so notable? Because I don’t consider a handful of states explicitly breaking federal law and as such not even able to use banks, as any kind of solution whatsoever.

                    I don’t think you ever gave a sufficient answer.

                    You can try to move the goalposts after the fact, but the implication was very clear.

        • guacupado@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          There are also a shit load of people who aren’t in there anymore because of what we did. Was it a complete solution? No, but with Republicans around nothing ever is.