In one corner we have an old tart and bitterly sarcastic Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and in the other we have hysterical, obese, unwise Latina Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor.   The Fourth of July fireworks came early this year.

Eric yesterday:

I note with interest, the ruling handed down from the USSC yesterday.
When we first saw this case come to the fore, I commented on it.
Those comments hold… you can’t fight racism by being racist.

Constitution of the United States, in part:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Justice Antonin Scalia, via James Taranto, Wall Street Journal:

“It has come to this, called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires?”

From a non-wise, but hysterical Latina Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.”

Hat tip:   Robert Stacy McCain.

Of the two justices, only Scalia comes close to what the Constitution actually says.   In contrast, clearly Justice Sotomayor is literate.   However the unwise Latina evidently deems it  is not necessary to read, or at least heed the Constitution which she took an oath to uphold and protect.

Reax, a lame streamer reacts to hysterical Latina, from Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times:

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent from the high court’s 6-2 decision Tuesday to uphold Michigan’s voter-approved ban on affirmative action for public universities has been variously described as “blistering,” “scathing,” and “outraged.”

It is passionate, for sure, but it is actually logical and scholarly, and well worth curling up with.

She laments that the court’s role as a bulwark against suppression of the minority has crumbled, and that her colleagues have allowed Michigan voters “to do what our Constitution forbids.”

I could well lament the fact that lynching is no longer legal because O.J. Simpson got wrongly acquited after hie murdered two people.

The purpose of the Constitution is not to protect the People from unwise acts of the People, but rather to protect the People from over reaching power  of the State.   Sotomayor has not the least problem with racial discrimination, when wields as an battle axe by the state.   She does object to the People having a say in how their government functions.

2 Responses to “Scalia V.  Sotomayor”


  1. EricFlorack
  2. Keith McNeil