Fogbow

Sotomayor praises Clarence Thomas: ‘He is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution’

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke highly of colleague Justice Clarence Thomas during an event on Thursday, saying, “He is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution.”

Sotomayor, who is liberal, acknowledged during remarks at the American Constitution Society that while she often disagrees with the conservative justice, she believes that “we share a common understanding about people and kindness towards them”

“Justice Thomas is the one justice in the building that literally knows every employee’s name, every one of them. And not only does he know their names, he remembers their families’ names and histories,” she said.

“He’s the first one who will go up to someone when you’re walking with him and say, ‘Is your son okay? How’s your daughter doing in college?’ He’s the first one that, when my stepfather died, sent me flowers in Florida,” she added.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:44 am Sotomayor is my favorite living justice, but this lack of social awareness--of self-awareness, appalls me. This is Dr. Birx level pandering to a willfully corrupt individual.

They can be intelligent, charming, and good at mimicking emotions. They may pretend to be interested in you, but in reality, they probably don’t care.

“They’re skilled actors whose sole mission is to manipulate people for personal gain,” Tompkins says.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:17 am I heard Ted Bundy was charming.

Atticus Finch wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:16 am Hitler was nice to his dog but he was still a psychopath.

Rex Chapman🏇🏼 @RexChapman wrote: “Federal law requires that spouses of the Supreme Court Justices disclose payments that they have received…[Ginni Thomas] received more than $680,000 from the Heritage Foundation and yet somehow the Thomases failed to report that.”

They are one.

neeneko wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:04 pm Damn.. they are really going down the 'facts are not a defense' path.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:07 pm

neeneko wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:04 pm Damn.. they are really going down the 'facts are not a defense' path.

... sorta?

Twyford wanted a federal court to order the state to transport him to a medical facility, where his mental impairments could be tested; evidence of that testing later could be presented to a court.

But SCOTUS ruled such evidence would have to first be presented in a state court, so the federal court did not yet belong in this case.

This ultimately is a federalism case, that is, SCOTUS is telling the lower federal courts to stop stepping on the state courts' toes, i.e., Twyford needs to ask a state court for the transport order.


In case it wasn't clear: Twyford is on death row; his mental impairments might make him ineligible for execution.


For the nerds: Although it is a 5-4 decision, basically it is 6-3; Gorsuch dissented only say cert. was improvidently granted. But it is technically a dissent because Gorsuch would have let the lower court's ruling stand.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:20 pmCorrect me if I am wrong, but the state court already said no which is why we are here in the first place. SCOTUS said that if the state court says no, then the answer is no and he gets to die without being evaluated, yes?

bob wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:07 pm This ultimately is a federalism case, that is, SCOTUS is telling the lower federal courts to stop stepping on the state courts' toes, i.e., Twyford needs to ask a state court for the transport order.

Jenna Ellis @JennaEllisEsq wrote: BREAKING: The Supreme Court added this Friday, June 24, as an opinion issuance day.

13 cases still remain. Tomorrow and Friday opinions will be issued starting at 10am ET.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:03 am I (somewhat) grok the legal issues at play here, but executing innocent folks and the possibly mentally infirm is a pet peeve.

Julia Bacha @juliabacha wrote: Breaking news: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that boycotts are not protected by the First Amendment. @ACLU has confirmed it'll take the case to the Supreme Court, with huge implications for free speech in America.

Supreme Court limits ability to enforce Miranda rights

The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.

"Today's ruling doesn't get rid of the Miranda right," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "But it does make it far harder to enforce. Under this ruling, the only remedy for a violation of Miranda is to suppress statements obtained from a suspect who's not properly advised of his right to remain silent. But if the case never goes to trial, or if the government never seeks to use the statement, or if the statement is admitted notwithstanding the Miranda violation, there's no remedy at all for the government's misconduct."

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the other liberal justices, said that the court's ruling was stripping "individuals of the ability to seek a remedy for violations of the right recognized in Miranda."

"The majority here, as elsewhere, injures the right by denying the remedy," she added.