Somebody asked why this is a “hill I want to die on” (I’m fine!) so I thought about it. 3 reasons: 1) I admire Sotomayor, her jurisprudence and her use of her platform. Ex: she has the most clerks of any other Justice, so she can lift up more young lawyers. I hate to see her casually trashed. - ThreadSky

petersagal.bsky.social • 359 days ago

Somebody asked why this is a “hill I want to die on” (I’m fine!) so I thought about it. 3 reasons:

1) I admire Sotomayor, her jurisprudence and her use of her platform. Ex: she has the most clerks of any other Justice, so she can lift up more young lawyers. I hate to see her casually trashed.

Reposted from Peter Sagal

I don't quite get the ire directed at this. From Sotomayor's perspective, nobody on the court is going anywhere, and if there's a chance to bond with one of the new conservative justices, even over public happy talk, why not? It may mean a changed vote down the line, or a moderated decision.

Comments

wergle.bsky.social•359 days ago

I see 9 kings and queens not beholden to voters or the law all saying trust us.

I will definitely change my mind if they suddenly create real and binding ethics. Until then, no.

Definitely willing to adjust the metaphor though. Would 9 priests be better?

johnbenoit.bsky.social•358 days ago

I respect Sotomayor for the same reasons you do, but I think smart people sometimes make the wrong call. Upholding the legitimacy of a rogue supreme court is, to me, a mistake

88corbs.bsky.social•359 days ago

I don’t want to sound like I am trashing Sotomayor. But Barnett showed such overwhelming GOP style arrogant disregard for the appointment process and the American people that its hard to see them together without the sense that this is a ploy to get people settled down before they screw us again.

88corbs.bsky.social•359 days ago

But you’re talking about people questioning her incentives. And I respect her and my own ignorance too much to comment on that.

Anyway Great Post Corbett!

connorlynch.bsky.social•359 days ago

My issue with the public event is the event itself is tone-deaf, not what the conduct they describe. There is not a single member of the public whose concern is that the justices aren't having enough collegial tea with each other.

toobigtofail.bsky.social•359 days ago

I mean, there's also the fact that Sotomayor is convinced nobody on the Court is leaving anytime soon, when, um.

connorlynch.bsky.social•359 days ago

The perception that the justices are insulated from the consequences of their own rulings undermines the Court. It portrays its members as out-of-touch governing elites with no sincere concern for the people they rule over.

It's a stupid publicity tour for either of them to do. Plain bad judgment.

kathleena.bsky.social•359 days ago

Thank you for your calm and reasonable arguments.

petersagal.bsky.social•359 days ago

2) the obvious notion that her incentives as a member of the court are very different than an outside critic or pundit. You really expect her to scorch her colleagues in public? Would you?

rexs1gma.bsky.social•359 days ago

this is why we love you, Peter.

janus303.bsky.social•359 days ago

She scorches her colleagues in her decisions. And she’s not just not scorching her colleagues in public, she is begging the public to pretend that the court is convivial, apolitical nonpartisan, and does a good job.

capitalistfool.bsky.social•359 days ago

I wish the liberals wouldn't smile for the class photos. That would piss Roberts off.
Even better, don't show up at all. (Roberts would have them AI'd in without giving it a thought.)

petersagal.bsky.social•359 days ago

3) All of the people yelling at her “legitimizing the court” of course are they themselves too sophisticated to be fooled. No: the concern is MMU, or Mythical Morons Unknown, people dumber than they who might be fooled by such a display! This same concern also lies behind much media criticism.

dvschroeder.bsky.social•359 days ago

I love the term MMU! Should I be embarrassed that I've never heard it before? Is it yours or should I credit someone else when I use it?

petersagal.bsky.social•359 days ago

I just made it up. It is a useful concept, though. The MMU is the person who is going to be suckered in to voting for Trump because the Times said “false claims” rather than “lies.”

robertdsullivan.bsky.social•358 days ago

"I demand that the New York Times be written at the reading level of people who would never in a million years read the New York Times."

blimple.bsky.social•359 days ago

This was a publicity event she was in no way obligated to do. It deflated and discouraged me and obviously many others because it was far beyond doing her job. I’m not asking her to publicly criticize the court or undermine her relationships. But doing PR stunts to polish ACB…naw

michaelanes.bsky.social•359 days ago

Comedian (& smart person) who chooses words carefully for a living selects a descriptor with strongly eugenicist roots.

Anyone like me, a psychologist concerned about scientific racism past & present, has a long hard road trying to get people to change. Because we're joyless scolds apparently.

petersagal.bsky.social•359 days ago

4) Finally, if you are genuinely concerned about the current SCOTUS, and I don’t blame you if you are, yelling On Here isn’t going to help. Go help out with a Senate campaign, because the only place where things could change.

axleblaze.bsky.social•359 days ago

The problem is there's no Senate campaign to support that will solve this in time to prevent the massive damage that is already happening and is coming. Politicians don't really want to go after the court because of how sacred it's treated because of PR like the thing being discussed

axleblaze.bsky.social•359 days ago

Yes criticizing things on the internet doesn't do much, but sometimes yelling into the void of social media makes you feel better. It's not like your defending of this serves more of a purpose than those that are complaining

leesarenae.bsky.social•359 days ago

Which Senate campaign would you recommend? Idaho is the closest wack job to me, but those people are too far gone.

petersagal.bsky.social•359 days ago

Not my place. I note both Sen Tester in MT and Sen Brown in OH are facing tough re-elects, though.

sailorpeter.bsky.social•359 days ago

Exactly whining on the internet is basically screaming into the clouds.

ankylodad.bsky.social•359 days ago

Uh excuse me name a more effective form of advocacy that you can do while taking a shit. And don’t say phone banking that’s gross.

dyqik.bsky.social•356 days ago

Donating money to campaigns

leastactionhero.bsky.social•359 days ago

if you are genuinely concerned about the current SCOTUS, yelling On Here for people to settle down isn’t going to help.

barb99.bsky.social•356 days ago

It’s all, and only, about voting

petersagal.bsky.social•356 days ago

I wanted to append this sharp analysis of today's case about government "censoring" people (Murthy v Missouri) in which Barrett allies herself with the 3 liberals. Did Sotomayor's Good Vibes tour create this alliance? No, of course not. But maybe it helped.

https://klonick.substack.com/p/murthy-oral-arguments-sotomayor-scolds?r=333m1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true