Justice Sotomayor’s Flawed History To Promote The Myth of Judicial Supremacy

Supremacy Clause:

This Constitution shall include the Laws of the United States that shall be made in pursuance of it. All Treaties which have been made or will be made under the Authority of the United States shall also be the supreme Law of the Land

This list does not include Supreme Court opinions. Cooper v. AaronBut, the Court’s decisions were elevated to the title of “supreme Law of the Land”. Unfortunately, the myth of supremacy of the judiciary is shared by three Supreme Court members.

Whole Woman’s Health V. JacksonJustice Sotomayor joined Justices Breyer, Kagan in writing a partial-dissent. She committed the cardinal sin of judicial supremacy–conflating ActualA decision by the Supreme Court can replace federal law. Worse, she defamed the Civil War’s history to continue this legend. It all happened in a matter of paragraphs.

[S.B. 8]It is a bold challenge to our federal structure. This is a direct challenge to our federal structure, echoing John C. Calhoun’s philosophy. Calhoun was a fierce defender of slaveryholding South and insisted that States have the right “veto” or “nullif.”[y]”Any federal law they did not agree with. Address of J. Calhoun, Speeches of John C. Calhoun 17–43 (1843). This case was not without parallels. The Court found analogous sentiments expressed in its companion, “The Supreme Court’s Interpretations of the Constitution are not the Constitution itself—they are, after all, called Views.” Response Brief for Intervenors, No. 21–50949 (CA5), p. 4.  Calhoun’s theories did not die, even though the Nation engaged in a Civil War to stop it. 

Calhoun claimed that he had the authority to invalidate federal statutes. These are Acts of Congress which, under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, constitute the supreme laws of the country. Texas is not claiming the right to invalidate any federal statute. Justice Sotomayor cites in jest Jonathan Mitchell’s brief. However, this genius is eloquently right: Roe v. Wade The supreme law does not include precedents that are related to them. These are only the opinions of Justices, and they can be criticized.

The theory of judicial superiority was the reason that the United States didn’t fight a Civil War. The Civil War was caused by judicial dominacy. Naturally, this is what I am referring to Dred Scott v. Sandford. Chief Justice Taney acknowledged a new constitutional right that was based on substantive due procedure to solve a controversial social issue by putting it beyond the control of the elected branches. Do you sound familiar? Do you feel the same? CaseyJustice Scalia was directly translated as Roe Dred Scott.

In this instance, it is even more feasible for us than it was in the past. [Chief Justice Taney]In [Dred Scott], to think that an issue of the sort they both involved an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation—can be “speedily and finally settled” by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. S.Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). In fact, this Court only prolongs and intensifies anguish by closing off all democratic outlets to express the passions that this issue provokes.

Justice Sotomayor’s exaltation of judicial supremacy would have shocked Abraham Lincoln, I believe. Lincoln supported the supremacy ActualFederal law. However, they sought to limit the scope. Dred Scott, a judicial usurpation. Indeed, S.B. Indeed, S.B.

Let me repeat the refrain I used in my previous post. Dobbs. Justice Sotomayor is not able to explain her colleagues who makes the decisions. The belief is that any group of Justices has the power to set national policies, which they believe are the Supreme Law of the land. They’re wrong.