Sotomayor's Public Attacks on Fellow Justices Reveal Hypocrisy on Judicial Philosophy
Source: Shawn Fleetwood. "In Public Attacks On SCOTUS, Sotomayor Sinks To A New Low." September 18, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Justice Sotomayor is being hypocritical when she criticizes her conservative colleagues for making decisions based on what they think the law should be rather than what it actually says. According to the author, Sotomayor has done exactly this herself in cases like Obergefell (gay marriage) and Dobbs (abortion), making her public criticism of colleagues both inconsistent and inappropriate.
Conclusion
Justice Sotomayor's public criticism of conservative colleagues for allegedly ruling based on what they think the law 'should be' rather than what it says is hypocritical, since she herself has engaged in the same behavior, and her comments represent an inappropriate new low in public attacks on the Court.
Premises
- Sotomayor claimed that some of her Supreme Court colleagues focus on what the law 'should be' rather than what it actually says.
- Sotomayor also claimed some of her colleagues don't understand how American government works, citing her disagreement with unitary executive theory.
- Sotomayor herself joined the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which the author claims had no sound constitutional basis for legalizing same-sex marriage.
- Sotomayor dissented in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022), which the author claims correctly overturned a fabricated constitutional right to abortion.
- This is not Sotomayor's first public attack on colleagues; she previously made and later apologized for a personal remark about Justice Kavanaugh's background.
- Other liberal justices, particularly Ketanji Brown Jackson, have also made public and written attacks characterizing conservative rulings as political or lawless.
- Sotomayor previously stated she tries to see the 'good' in her colleagues even when they disagree, making her current public criticisms inconsistent with her stated values.
Assumptions
- Originalist or textualist interpretations of the Constitution (as used in Dobbs, unitary executive theory) represent objectively correct legal reasoning, while opposing interpretations represent result-oriented reasoning.
- Public statements by justices criticizing colleagues' judicial philosophy are inherently inappropriate or improper, regardless of content.
- Obergefell and similar rulings the author disagrees with necessarily reflect judges imposing personal policy preferences rather than legitimate constitutional interpretation.
- There is a clear, uncontested standard for determining when a justice is following 'what the law says' versus 'what the law should be.'
- Sotomayor's remarks are motivated by ideology rather than genuine concern about judicial ethics or civic education.