The “Wise Latina” is an embarrassment, and it is good that Sonia reminded us of her obnoxious wokism since it has been briefly over-shadowed by Biden’s DEI appointment, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. That embarrassment was recently discussed (again) here.
But Justice Sotomayor recently used an appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law to insult fellow Court member Bret Kavanaugh using the favorite leftist cheap-shot, attacking his “privilege” as an ad hominem approach avoiding a substantive argument regarding the law. Sonia has neither the wit nor legal acumen to debate Kavanaugh on the merits.
Sotomayor was referencing a Supreme Court stay of a partisan judge’s order preventing I.C.E. agents in the Los Angeles area from stopping and questioning individuals suspected of being illegal aliens. Kavanaugh, agreeing with the Court’s stay, wrote in part,
The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes immigration officers to “interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain inthe United States.” 66 Stat. 233, 8 U. S. C. §1357(a)(1). Immigration officers “may briefly detain” an individual “for questioning” if they have “a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned . . . is an alien illegally in the United States.” The reasonable suspicion inquiry turns onthe “totality of the particular circumstances.” Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273.
The Government estimates that at least 15 million peopleare in the United States illegally. Many millions illegally entered (or illegally overstayed) just in the last few years. Illegal immigration is especially pronounced in the Los Angeles area, among other locales in the United States. About 10 percent of the people in the Los Angeles region are illegally in the United States—meaning about 2 million illegal immigrants out of a total population of 20 million. Not surprisingly given those extraordinary numbers,
U. S. immigration officers have prioritized immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area. The Government sometimes makes brief investigative stops to check the immigration status of those who gather in locations where people are hired for day jobs; who work or appear to working jobs such as construction, landscaping, agriculture, or car washes that often do not require paperwork and are therefore attractive to illegal immigrants; and who do not speak much if any English. If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go. If the individual is illegally in the United States, the officers may arrest the individual and initiate the process for removal. Immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence have been an important component of U. S. immigration enforcement for decades, across several presidential administrations. In this case, however, the District Court enjoined U. S. immigration officers from making investigative stops in the Los Angeles area when the stops are based on the following factors or combination of factors: (i) presence at particular locations such as bus. stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like; (ii) the type of work one does;
(iii) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; and (iv) apparent race or ethnicity.1
The Government contends that the injunction will substantially hamper its efforts to enforce the immigration laws in the Los Angeles area. The Government has therefore asked this Court to stay the District Court’s injunction….To stop an individual for brief questioning about immigration status, the Government must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the United States. See Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 880–882; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273; United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, 7 (1989). Reasonable suspicion is a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 274. Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction,that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico. or Central America and do not speak much English. Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 (listing “[a]ny number of factors” that contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal presence)….Under this Court’s precedents, not to mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States. Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop lead to further immigration proceedings….“
Of this, Sotomayor told her audience,
“I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops. This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour… Those hours that they took you away, nobody’s paying that person. And that makes a difference between a meal for him and his kids that night and maybe just cold supper…Life experiences teach you to think more broadly and to see things others may not. And when I have a moment where I can express that on behalf of people who have no other voice, then I’m being given a very rare privilege.”
What she was in fact revealing with this emotional swill is that her experience leads her to forget that she’s a judge and not a social worker. Being good citizens and Americans frequently require sacrifices, and cooperating with law enforcement is often time-consuming.
I am also paid by the hour, and if I am required for spend unbillable time to help our law enforcement officials protect us from criminals and wrongdoers, so be it. Sotomayor is making bigoted assumptions about Kavanaugh—how does she know he doesn’t know anyone who works for an hourly wage? Because he’s white? Funny, I’m white with a similar academic background as Kavanaugh, and members of my own family are hourly workers.
Sotomayor’s warped values conclude that addressing the nation’s dangerous and expensive illegal immigrant problem, inflicted on us by the Party that put her on the Court, is subordinate to the temporary inconvenience suffered by legal citizens stopped as part of a necessary enforcement process. Her analysis is rooted in feelings—empathy, ethnic loyalty— rather than law and reality. That’s because she’s a bad judge: biased, unethical, and not too bright. I base this not on her ethnicty and gender, but upon what she writes and says.
“Privilege” is a condescending, dishonest rhetorical cheat that allows advocates to dismiss arguments they can’t deal with logically and substantively by deflecting the discussion to “Well, you just wouldn’t understand.” Women use this unethical dodge to dismiss male views on abortion. Blacks use the same device to mark whites as constitutionally unable to consider policies affecting minorities and the poor. Essentially, it is an assertion that the targeted individual is too dim-witted, narrow-minded and self-involved to be able to see past his or her own experiences.
You know, like Justice Sotomayor.
______________________
Source: Res Ipsa Loquitur
Pointer: Steve Witherspoon
Ethics Alarms 