When the Founding Fathers wrote the US Constitution, they intentionally made the Judicial Branch of the government to be the least powerful. That includes Supreme Court justices and all federal judges. Judges were supposed to be politically neutral and rule on the Constitution and legally passed laws and not on political bias, but judges are still human and subject to their own beliefs and understanding of the Constitution and laws. Therefore, it’s impossible for any judge to be totally unbiased, so when a president nominates any person to serve as a Supreme Court justice or federal judge, they tend to share some of the political ideologies of the nominating president.

That was true from the very beginning with America’s first President, George Washington nominated the first 11 Supreme Court justices and 28 district judges. In the fledgling years of the world’s new country known as the United States of America, the appointment of Supreme Court justices and federal judges did not play as much of political influence as they do in modern days.

For the past 100 years or more, presidential nominated Supreme Court justices have been playing more of an important political role than ever and many of those appointments have helped shape America as we know it.

Abraham Lincoln appointed 5 Supreme Court justices; William Howard Taft nominated 6 Supreme Court justices; Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated 9 and Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated 5. During each of those administrations, many of the rulings of the Supreme Court echoed the political ideology of the president that nominated them. The same thing happened during the terms of Ronald Reagan when he nominated 4 Supreme court justices, creating a relatively conservative high court.

Bill Clinton placed 2 liberal Democrats on the Supreme Court – Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both of whom still serve. Then Barack Obama placed 2 more extreme liberals on the high court – Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Together, these 4 liberals have tried to use their extremely biased political views to reshape America into something ugly and diametrically opposed to the country our forefathers created.

Additionally, Clinton placed 376 liberals on federal courts around the nation and Obama placed 327 liberals and socialists on federal courts. These liberal and socialist justices have also been misusing and abusing their positions to illegally influence the direction and law of America. This has been especially true over the past 3 years as they continue to use their positions to block many of President Trump’s actions and policies. Their political bias has been more than obvious.

As if blind or just plain ignorant of the extreme political bias of the Clinton and Obama judicial appointees, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has the audacity to blast Trump’s appointees for their bias, as reported:

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a scathing rebuke of the court’s decision to allow the Trump administration to enforce its “public charge” rule in the state of Illinois, limiting which non-citizens can obtain visas to enter the U.S.

Sotomayor’s problems with the conservative majority’s ruling went far beyond this case, claiming that it was symptomatic of the court’s habit of siding with the government when they seek emergency stays of rulings against them.

“It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

So, what about Sotomayor’s rulings? She voted to legalize same-sex marriage and against the sanctity of the traditional family unit. She has also ruled against the majority of Trump’s policies that were challenged and ended up before the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan are all extreme liberals who interpret EVERYTHING from their extreme liberal views. This means that Sotomayor has no grounds or reason to complain about Trump’s appointees. She needs take a good look in the mirror and then pay heed to the old warning about people throwing stones in glass houses.

11 thoughts on “Supreme Court Justice Displays Biased Hypocrisy”

  2. This piece is complete garbage. Whoever wrote it was either engaged in extreme irony or has no grasp of that which he or she complains. If there is a desire to show that decisions are being based on something other than the law, then the actual law needs to be described as context, not beliefs or opinions.

  3. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is a left wing hack as only a Barack Obama would appoint. She is a left wing mediocre judge who should never have been placed on any federal court. She shouldn’t be on any state court either. This is the ‘babe’ [the Wise Latina] who was married for eight years and not ONE DAY during those eight years did she reside in the same city as her husband. How do you say, “marriage of convenience” – probably hiding her sexual orientation. Well done, Obama, you America hating fool.

  4. The truth will always come out in the long run. The Constitution is not a bunch of words or a lot of pages that is to be used to control Social issues, the Constitution is not a living document that you change just because you think it is. Interpretation should be based on the State of the Union at the time of writing, the simple interpreted meaning of what the founding fathers were thinking and not just because some unhinged objectionable has the power to legislate from the Bench.

    The problem is we, “WE THE PEOPLE” have allowed our Political elected officials the power to rule without our Approval. The People need to take the power back, the people in their individual states need to neutralize the Federal Government. Elections in each state should prohibit any outside financing or interference.in its Local, State or Federal elections. Billionaires like Soros or Bloomberg or and Company or organization or national Union should have any input into who is elected within any state. It all begins in your home town and goes all the way to Washington DC. At some point in time it will be inevitable.

  5. The federal judiciary and the Supreme Court do not occupy an inferior station in our government; the federal judiciary is a co-equal branch.
    Principled dissent has long been a foundational characteristic of Supreme Court decisions. Justice Sotomayor has followed that tradition, and her dissent is entirely appropriate.
    What is not appropriate is the Senate confirming as Federal judges individuals with questionable credentials for the country’s highest court, including some who view religious tracts and doctrine as having a role superior to the Constitution. In years past, nominees were given a professional qualifications vetting by the American Bar Association. Regardless of the party in power that should still obtain.

  6. You got to be kidding! Many of Trumps Federal appointees have been rated unqualified. The rest are well-known idea laws for the right wing. Let’s not be stupid.

  7. Sotomayer should be addressed. One way will be if President Trump gets to appoint another Supreme Court Judge. Ginsburg should be about ready for a dirt nap and should go!!!

  8. The courts are not to rule on the Constitution or legally enacted laws. The courts are to rule on cases. Cases are when parties have a dispute. Court ruling are not to affect those who are not parties. It is a clear due process violation for: people who have not been served, have not had an opportunity to know of a case before the decision, have not been able to present evidence, could not present constitutional provisions and laws to argue their interest to be affected by a court decision. Congress is supposed to make sure its laws are constitutional. The executive branch of government is supposed to only enforce constitutional laws and enforce constitutional laws in a constitutional way. The courts only come in if some party thinks their rights are violated or a law has been broken. Unlike the legislative or executive branches the judicial branch is not allowed to take the initiative except to report to the executive branch.

  9. So these appointees are BIASED because they know how to READ? What about the bias of conservative justices, who apparently CAN’T READ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.