The jury is in - Sotomayor is in over her head

Apr 25, 2024, 9:08 PM

Listening to the replay of the SCOTUS oral arguments from earlier today pertaining to the subset of J6 vs Trump case, with that subset being the question of ‘presidential immunity.’

First, the Trump basis for the “immunity” matter pertains strictly to the president’s execution of official duties. There are very few historical specific instances in which ‘official duties’ are articulated as being so conflicted with ‘personal interests,’ with bribery being among those very few statutory exceptions.

OK, now to Sotomayor. During the DoJ’s part in the Q&A, Sotomayor starts with her usual routine of sounding like news babe Kristin Walker. In other words, a canned set-the-table statement that comports with the points of view of Trump haters. That’s OK, although an eye-roller, that wasn’t blatantly stupid.

But …

Then, Sotomayor offers what she believes will be a slow, fat pitch down the middle of the plate to DoJ attorney Dreeben. She proclaims that there are many, many statutory examples of ‘approved’ activities (she would have said ‘immune’ presidential activities, except that the DoJ is desperately attempting to avoid the term ‘immunity,’ and Sotomayor is sympathetic with DoJ’s agenda); then she says that there are very few statutory examples of ‘unapproved’ activities. She was trying to make the argument for DoJ’s Dreeben that there is no need for ‘presidential immunity’ because nearly all examples of ‘approved’ activities had already been codified.

(*). The DoJ guy (Dreeben) then stammered for an instant, and then responded ‘no, there are very few presidential activities that have been specifically described as ‘approved’ or ‘disapproved,’ and that there are other means by which the ‘approved’ vs ‘disapproved’ concerns are already available to ascertain the legality of a president’s actions.’

Poor Sotomayor. As her baseline, she is not capable of adapting her pre-practiced speeches to the answers from the attorneys or to coming up with relevant follow-up questions.

K.Brown-Jackson is weak in her initial questions, but she pays attention to the Q&A’s with the other Justices, and then is pretty good at legitimate ‘second time around’ questions.
E.Kagan is smart. She’s a flag burning leftist, but there is no doubting her intelligence.
Sotomayor is a problem for the leftists. She embarrasses the leftist cause.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down