Sotomayor: The Mythologizer
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It’s sort of astonishing that in her dissent in the 303 case, Sotomayor begins with a soliloquy. “LGBT people have existed for all of human history,” she writes. Of course, all four of these are modern identities — socially constructed, one might say — that don’t map neatly onto sexual behaviors of times past. “The movement for LGBT rights . . . is the latest chapter of this great American story,” she writes as if penning a college-admissions essay.
By the fourth paragraph, she has moved on to describe the history of social discrimination against LGBT people. “Who could forget the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard? Matthew was targeted by two men, tortured, tied to a buck fence, and left to die for who he was,” she writes. But this narrative has long been seriously challenged , by gay journalists, as a moralizing fable grafted onto a more complicated tragedy about drug use and drug-dealing. She continues, “Or the Pulse nightclub massacre, the second-deadliest mass shooting in U. S. history?” But, again, it’s well-documented that Omar Mateen, the shooter who affiliated himself with ISIS, had no idea he was entering a gay club.
As a news report at NBC from 2016 says, “The attack on the nightclub has long been seen as a hate crime directed at the LGBTQ community. But all evidence says the gunman chose it at random.”
There is something almost sick about invoking these crimes in this opinion. It would be like a right-wing justice invoking the crimes of Colin Ferguson before denying a stay of execution. It’s a smear of guilt by association. This website designer is in league with cold-blooded murderers, is the suggestion.
Sotomayor won’t let the facts get in the way of a good moralizing tale. We have heard in the last decade or so of the proliferation of “hate hoaxes.” Sotomayor is a hoax justice of the Supreme Court.
Tags
Who is online
542 visitors
I've seen some commentary about how Sotomayor and Jackson's extremism and politicized rantings have handcuffed Kagan, the brains of the left wing. The hope among moderate left wingers was that Kagan would be able to use her skills to form temporary alliances with the moderate conservatives and steer the court or at least moderate it in a way that appeals to the left. . After all, its the "conservative" judges who've demonstrated time and time again they are open to being persuaded and willing to vote in opposition to other conservatives on high profile cases. So the opportunity is obviously there.
But Jackson and Sotomayor are so extreme and committed to their far left ideology as they demonstrated the last few days, Kagan has no chance. The justices too are left are simply too radical to agree to moderate arguments that are grounded in legal reality. Their craziness offers nothing appealing to the moderate "conservatives" making it impossible for Kagan to try and find a middle ground.
Excellent article. Her resentments makes her unfit for the Court.
Is there a difference between LGBTQ rights and American rights?
What does the Constitution say about homosexuality ? I assume whatever it is it is definitive.
Not that I'm aware of.
Exactly, and web designers should be compelled to create web sites recruiting for the Proud Boys or celebrating Jan 6 or Pro Life organizations regardless of the personal feelings. Free speech only goes so for.
It means you can say what you want or not say what you don't want!
Nothing to do with the article.
lol
I quote:
No difference.
What does the Constitution say about homosexuality ?
At the time it was written people weren't fawning over what was then considered a deviation at best. But then again the genius of our founders allows for amendments to compensate for all the future unknowns.
I have a question for you John. How do you feel about the Constitution?
I dont care about your far right extremist questions.
Do we need a constitutional amendment to secure LGBTQ rights? On what possible basis would that be the case?
Why??
They have the same right as you or I do.
Stop pretending they don't.
I don't think so. I cannot think of a single right that this protected group does not have.
On what possible basis would that be the case?
Unfortunately John, the ACLU isn't rushing to get cases before the Court anymore. Funny how that works.
[Deleted]
One more thing: You didnt need to answer the question. The answer is obvious.
Another example of playing perpetual victim.
Another hit & run special
[Deleted]
I will just call you "Vic" and describe your actions and commentary
For some strange reason you have this deluded idea that people here run away from you.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Most do. Present company excluded. In your case I think you just wanted to drop something meaningful and leave.
The problem is that it wasn't meaningful.
No. They already have the same rights as everyone else. No more....no less.
I really don't get what is so hard to understand about it.
Sonia Sotomayor is becoming the Anthony Fauci of the Supreme Court.