Sonia Sotomayor has built her reputation on the Supreme Court not through legal brilliance or persuasive reasoning, but through a relentless display of grievance and victimhood that borders on performance.
Last year, she admitted that recent rulings brought her to tears. “There are days that I’ve come to my office after an announcement of a case and closed my door and cried,” she said. “There have been those days. And there are likely to be more.”
She continued, “There are moments when I’m deeply, deeply sad. There are moments when, yes, even I feel desperation. But you have to own it, you have to accept it, you have to shed the tears and then you have to wipe them and get up.”
Well, she’s still complaining.
In a dissent of a Supreme Court ruling, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said: "Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial."
Justice Sotomayor made this statement in her dissent from the ruling allowing for migrants to be deported to countries they are not from.
In her dissent, which she wrote with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, she said that this would result in the government "deporting noncitizens to potentially dangerous countries without notice or the opportunity to assert a fear of torture."
Let’s be clear: Sotomayor’s recent complaints about the Trump administration supposedly having the Supreme Court “on speed dial” are nothing more than sour grapes from a justice who can’t stand being in the minority. She’s not offering a principled critique of legal procedure—she’s whining because the Court didn’t rubber-stamp her preferred political outcome.
Instead of engaging with the facts or the law, Sotomayor resorts to lobbing accusations—claiming her Republican-appointed colleagues are putting their “thumbs on the scale” for Trump. But the record tells a different story: the conservative justices haven’t reflexively sided with Trump nearly as consistently as the liberal justices have ruled against him. The double standard is glaring. Elena Kagan, for example, opposed nationwide injunctions when Biden was in office—but suddenly embraced them when it came to blocking Trump’s policies. Let’s stop pretending that the liberal wing of the court cares about the Constitution.
ICYMI: Kamala’s Tone-Deaf Fourth of July Message Just Backfired Spectacularly
Sotomayor has a clear pattern: when she doesn’t get her way, she doesn’t just dissent—she melts down. Her opinions read more like political rants than legal reasoning, full of dramatic warnings about the supposed collapse of judicial independence. She’s quick to accuse her colleagues of bias, yet never questions her own. At one point, she even begged the media to amplify her views, as if her personal disappointment were a national emergency. This isn’t the behavior of a serious jurist—it’s the posture of someone who thinks her feelings matter more than the Constitution.
Her conduct reflects a deeper problem on the left: the belief that if the system doesn’t produce the outcome they want, it must be broken. Instead of accepting that the law sometimes cuts against their agenda, they attack the court’s legitimacy. That’s not just petty—it’s dangerous. The Supreme Court’s authority depends on public trust, and every time Sotomayor throws another self-pitying tantrum, she chips away at that foundation.
Americans deserve justices who uphold the Constitution—not ones who weaponize their emotions. If Sotomayor spent half as much time on legal reasoning as she does on emotional grandstanding, the court—and the country—would be better for it.
If you’re tired of emotional grandstanding masquerading as legal reasoning, you’re not alone. PJ Media is the antidote to the mainstream’s narrative, shining a light on the facts and exposing activist justices for what they are. Use promo code POTUS47 for 74% off PJ Media VIP—enjoy exclusive articles, no ads, and the power to comment. The battle for the Constitution starts here. Don’t miss out—join now!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member