Reprinted with permission from Alternet
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a strong warning to the American people and a strong rebuke of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the newest far right wing Justices on the Trump-shaped conservative-majority Supreme Court in a blistering but brilliant dissent handed down Thursday.
Justice Sotomayor warned this newly-constructed court, unevenly weighted with six justices (ranging from highly conservative to far right wing religious extremist,) is "willing to overrule precedent without even acknowledging it is doing so, much less providing any special justification."
That warning is similar to those posed by legal experts from the left who were extremely opposed to then-President Donald Trump's final Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Barrett's judicial opinions made clear she will not honor precedent, known as stare decisis. Without that legal guardrail many decidedly settled law targets of conservatives, from the right to choose an abortion to the right to marry, could be struck down by the "Trump Court."
The case Justice Sotomayor used to deliver her warning and her criticism of Justice Kavanaugh, is Jones v. Mississippi. It centers on a 15-year old boy who murdered his father, claimed self defense, and was sentenced to life in prison. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled life in prison for minors convicted of "non-homicide crimes" constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, unless that minor has been found to be "incorrigible," or unable to be rehabilitated. (The ACLU's position is regardless of the type of crime, life in prison for minors is cruel and unusual.)
On Thursday Justice Kavanaugh, who himself has a history of disturbing acts in college, as his confirmation hearing proved, wrote the 6-3 majority opinion in which he upheld the lower court ruling that the defendant was rightly sentenced to life in prison despite no finding of whether or not he is able to be rehabilitated.
"How low this Court's respect for stare decisis has sunk," Justice Sotomayor warned.
"Not long ago, that doctrine was recognized as a pillar of the 'rule of law,' critical to 'keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge's opinion,'" she wrote, citing Kavanaugh's own opinion in a previous ruling.
"Now, it seems, the Court is willing to overrule precedent without even acknowledging it is doing so, much less providing any special justification. It is hard to see how that approach is 'founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals,'" she added, again using Kavanaugh's own words against him.
She called the ruling a "contortion" of previous rulings, and writes: "As this Court has consistently reiterated, 'a departure from precedent demands special justification.'"
"The Court offers no such justification today. Nor could it," she charged.
"Instead of addressing these factors, the Court simply rewrites Miller and Montgomery," she observes, naming the two cases the provide the precedent today's ruling effectively overrules, "to say what the Court now wishes they had said, and then denies that it has done any such thing."
Slate's legal expert Mark Joseph Stern calls the ruling in the case "barbarous," Sotomayor's warning "ominous," and her criticism of Kavanaugh "one of the most savage passages she has ever written."
One last thing I want to say about the Supreme Court's terrible decision in Jones v. Mississippi today: The defenda… https://t.co/mYoGpCANzx— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern)1619101542.0
University of Michigan Law School asst. professor Leah Litman:
Justice Sotomayor brings the "stare decisis is for suckers" point home: "How low this Court's respect for stare dec… https://t.co/C8FXjFFyD1— Leah Litman (@Leah Litman)1619100444.0
The U.S. Supreme Court has now made emphatically clear it is an activist court and "settled law" is fair game.
Civil rights activists, and the American people who value their rights, consider yourselves warned.
- Trump Enraged By Supreme Court Refusal To Shield His Taxes ... ›
- Supreme Court Nominations - National Memo ›
- Brett Kavanaugh Explained How He Plans To Cheat American Voters ›
- Trump's Shady Accountants Facing Supreme Court Test Over His ... ›
- Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Trump Effort To Overturn ... ›
- How Clarence And Ginni Thomas Soil The Supreme Court's Ethical ... ›
- Supreme Court Rules That Prosecutor Can Get Trump Tax Returns ... ›
- Justice Barrett Ignores Ethical Concerns To Hear Koch Outfit's Lawsuit - National Memo ›
- Supreme Court Will Hear Case That Endangers Roe Decision - National Memo ›
- The Constitutional Right To Abortion Is About To Disappear - National Memo ›
- Liberals Urging Breyer To Quit Court After McConnell Warning - National Memo ›
- SCOTUSblog - Independent News & Analysis on the U.S. Supreme ... ›
- Shifting from a 5-4 to a 6-3 Supreme Court majority could be seismic ... ›
- How A Conservative 6-3 Majority Would Reshape The Supreme Court ›
- Analysis: The Supreme Court hasn't been this conservative since the ... ›
- Sotomayor Opens Up About Kavanaugh Coming to the Supreme Court ›
- Divided Supreme Court Weighs Louisiana Abortion Law : NPR ›
- In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Schumer for 'threatening ... ›