Democrats in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/u-s-senate" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate</a> are expressing concerns about the possibility of a scenario that echoes <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ruth-bader-ginsburg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a> suddenly dying and giving way to a conservative majority during Donald Trump&#8217;s presidency.
A report from <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/top-democrats-wont-join-calls-justice-sotomayor-retire-still-fear-ruth-rcna145912" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC News</a> explored how this anxiety is centered on Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/sonia-sotomayor" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sonia Sotomayor</a>, the oldest liberal member of the court at 69 and a lifelong diabetic, not stepping down while President Joe <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biden</a> is in office and Democrats control the Senate.
&#8220;I’m very respectful of Justice Sotomayor. I have great admiration for her. But I think she really has to weigh the competing factors,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told the news outlet. &#8220;We should learn a lesson. And it’s not like there’s any mystery here about what the lesson should be. The old saying — graveyards are full of indispensable people, ourselves in this body included.&#8221;
Though Blumenthal said Sotomayor is &#8220;a highly accomplished and, obviously, fully functioning justice right now,&#8221; he noted that &#8220;justices have to make their personal decisions about their health, and their level of energy, but also to keep in mind the larger national and public interest in making sure that the court looks and thinks like America.&#8221;
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the second-ranked Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said he is &#8220;not joining any calls&#8221; for Sotomayor to step down but warned of an &#8220;extremist wing&#8221; if the 6-3 conservative majority created during Trump&#8217;s presidency is allowed to expand further.
&#8220;Run it to 7-2 and you go from a captured court to a full MAGA court,&#8221; Whitehouse added. &#8220;Certainly I think if Justice Ginsburg had it to do over again, she might have rethought her confidence in her own health.&#8221;
Biden has been able to nominate just one person to the high court during his presidency. He selected <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ketanji-brown-jackson-sworn-in-as-supreme-court-justice" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ketanji Brown Jackson</a> to replace Stephen Breyer, who retired <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-stephen-breyer-reveals-when-he-will-retire-from-scotus" target="_blank" rel="noopener">under pressure</a> from the Left.
Ginsburg long resisted a push by <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0G12UZ/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">liberals</a> who wanted her to retire as she reached her 80s and experienced <a href="https://people.com/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-health-ups-downs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">health scares</a>. She <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-from-cancer-complications" target="_blank" rel="noopener">died</a> of pancreatic cancer at the age of 87 in 2020, paving the way for Trump-nominated Amy Coney Barrett to take her place.
Some <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/should-sotomayor-retire-biden_n_66032a7ae4b006c3905731dd" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legal scholars</a> are now pushing for Sotomayor to step down, but the NBC News report claimed there are no signs that Sotomayor has plans to retire. However, <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/sotomayor-says-surprised-by-supreme-court-pace-tougher-workload" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to Bloomberg Law</a>, she said in January that she was &#8220;tired&#8221; by the workload. Sotomayor has served on the high court since 2009 during the Obama administration.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1712234347815000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1G-VkjVO0p4qoEkiCI9cqF">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Biden is running for a second term, paving the way to a 2020 general election rematch against Trump. White House spokesman Andrew Bates said Biden &#8220;believes that decisions to retire from the Supreme Court should be made by the justices themselves and no one else.&#8221;
One Republican lawmaker quoted in the new report was Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who is 90 and has already <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3740578-grassley-has-already-filed-for-reelection-bid-in-2028/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filed paperwork</a> to run for a ninth term in 2028. &#8220;Everybody’s got to make that personal decision,&#8221; Grassley said. &#8220;And I wouldn’t comment on it for somebody else, because that’s their decision. Just like it’s my decision to run for re-election.&#8221;

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Dem Senators Get Anxious Over Prospect Of Another Ginsburg Situation On SCOTUS

2024 Election

Courts

Politics

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

SCOTUS

Senate Democrats

Sonia Sotomayor

Supreme Court

U.S. Senate

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> unveiled a formal ethics code this week amid <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/key-allegations-against-clarence-thomas-democrats-call-probe-1819296">scrutiny</a> from the media and Congress over concerns that the justices have failed to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/longtime-thomas-friend-hits-back-at-democratic-probe-into-financial-records" target="_blank" rel="noopener">properly disclose gifts</a> and did not recuse themselves in cases in which they might have a conflict of interest.
A <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">15-page document</a>, featuring a statement at the top and a &#8220;Code of Conduct&#8221; below, was <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_11-13-23" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> to the high court&#8217;s website on Monday. All nine members, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, signed off on adhering to the five &#8220;canon&#8221; rules.
The five canons, many of which included subsections, said a justice &#8220;should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary,&#8221; &#8220;should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities,&#8221; &#8220;should perform the duties of office fairly, impartially, and diligently,&#8221; &#8220;may engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of the judicial office,&#8221; and &#8220;should refrain from political activity.&#8221;
A &#8220;statement of the Court&#8221; offered a brief explanation for drawing out an ethics code without getting into specific media reports on ethical questions and a lack of transparency that have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-cites-safety-concerns-for-private-jet-travel-after-dobbs-leak" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dogged conservative</a> justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, as well as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/sonia-sotomayor-neil-gorsuch-book-recusal-supreme-court-cases/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">liberal Justice</a> Sonia Sotomayor in recent months while fueling an <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/releases/durbin-announces-judiciary-committee-will-no-longer-vote-to-authorize-subpoena-for-robin-arkley-following-cooperation-in-supreme-court-ethics-investigation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">investigation led by the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee</a>.
&#8220;The undersigned Justices are promulgating this Code of Conduct to set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the Members of the Court,&#8221; the statement said.
&#8220;For the most part these rules and principles are not new: The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice,&#8221; the statement added.
&#8220;The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules,&#8221; the statement said. &#8220;To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.&#8221;

Supreme Court Reveals Ethics Code For Justices

Clarence Thomas

Ethics

John Roberts

Judiciary

Samuel Alito

U.S.

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> Justice Sonia Sotomayor&#8217;s net worth has skyrocketed ever since she became a member of the nation&#8217;s highest court — which has led to criticism from experts.
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sotomayors-wealth-skyrocketed-since-joining-supreme-court-raising-ethics-concerns">reported</a> that, according to financial disclosures, Sotomayor&#8217;s wealth increased from being in the $15,001-$65,000 range in 2008 to being in the $1,600,000-$6,600,000 range in 2021.
Sotomayor was nominated by then-President Barack Obama to the Supreme Court in 2009. A recent data analysis of her actions on the court found that she is the <a href="https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology">most partisan</a> justice on the court.
The 69-year-old reportedly makes more than $25,000 per year teaching law schools in addition to her $285,400 salary from the court.
The Associated Press reported that the main reason that her wealth has surged is because of the books that she has written.
Sotomayor used her taxpayer-funded court staff to enrich herself by using them to perform tasks &#8220;for the justice&#8217;s book ventures.&#8221;
&#8220;Sotomayor’s staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children’s books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009,&#8221; the report <a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-sotomayor-book-sales-ethics-colleges-b2cb93493f927f995829762cb8338c02">said</a>.
The report said that she continues to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties from her book sales.
The publisher of her books, Penguin Random House, has been involved in &#8220;several matters&#8221; before the court in which Sotomayor did not recuse herself.
“Justice Sotomayor would have recused in cases in which Penguin Random House was a party, in light of her close and ongoing relationship with the publisher,” the Supreme Court said in a statement. “An inadvertent omission failed to bring Penguin’s participation in several cases to her attention; those cases ultimately were not selected for review by the Court. Chambers’ conflict check procedures have since been changed.”
Former White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter said that he was &#8220;very concerned&#8221; about Sotomayor&#8217;s book sales while on the court.
&#8220;It&#8217;s problematic to the core,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I think that&#8217;s wrong. There&#8217;s just too much money in it, millions of dollars. We&#8217;ve got to know the difference between judges and cable news hosts.&#8221;
Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, slammed recent partisan attacks by Senate Democrats on conservative justices, saying that their silence on the Sotomayor situation revealed that they don&#8217;t actually care about ethics.
&#8220;What is unmistakable is the deafening silence of so many Democrats and others on the left who have constantly attacked conservative Supreme Court justices — and for far less,&#8221; said Davis. &#8220;If Senate Democrats actually cared about ethics, they&#8217;d start by cleaning up the crack den called the Biden White House.&#8221;

The U.S. Supreme Court Poses For Official Group Photo

Supreme Court Justice’s Net Worth Skyrockets Since Joining The Court: Report

Supreme Court Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/neil-gorsuch" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neil Gorsuch</a> shredded Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the Court&#8217;s ruling to strike down a Colorado law that would have punished a Christian graphic designer who declined to design a website for a same-sex wedding that violated her religious beliefs.
In a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-christian-graphic-designer-who-refused-to-work-on-same-sex-weddings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">6-3 decision</a> in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the high court cited the First Amendment in ruling that Lorie Smith could not be forced by state civil rights law to design websites that run counter to her sincerely-held religious beliefs. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, saying “no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution.”
&#8220;It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,&#8221; Gorsuch said. &#8220;Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws, post, at 7–13, and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law, post, at 14–17. And, no doubt, there is much to applaud here. But none of this answers the question we face today: Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?&#8221;
&#8220;When the dissent finally gets around to that question—more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The dissent claims that Colorado wishes to regulate Ms. Smith’s &#8216;conduct,&#8217; not her speech. Post, at 24–29. Forget Colorado’s stipulation that Ms. Smith’s activities are &#8216;expressive,&#8217; App. to Pet. for Cert. 181a, and the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion that the State seeks to compel &#8216;pure speech,&#8217; 6 F. 4th, at 1176. The dissent chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge. Post, at 23. But it ignores the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Ms. Smith faces a credible threat of sanctions unless she conforms her views to the State’s. 6 F. 4th, at 1172–1175. The dissent suggests (over and over again) that any burden on speech here is &#8216;incidental.&#8217; Post, at 24, 26–30, 32–33. All despite the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Colorado intends to force Ms. Smith to convey a message she does not believe with the &#8216;very purpose&#8217; of &#8216;[e]liminating . . . ideas&#8217; that differ from its own.&#8221;
Gorsuch <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-christian-graphic-designer-who-refused-to-work-on-same-sex-weddings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">continued</a>:
<blockquote>Nor does the dissent’s reimagination end there. It claims that, “for the first time in its history,” the Court “grants a business open to the public” a “right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” Post, at 1; see also id., at 26, n. 10, 35. Never mind that we do no such thing and Colorado itself has stipulated Ms. Smith will (as CADA requires) “work with all people regardless of . . . sexual orientation.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 184a. Never mind, too, that it is the dissent that would have this Court do something truly novel by allowing a government to coerce an individual to speak contrary to her beliefs on a significant issue of personal conviction, all in order to eliminate ideas that differ from its own.
There is still more. The dissent asserts that we “sweep under the rug petitioners’ challenge to CADA’s Communication Clause.” Post, at 26. This despite the fact the parties and the Tenth Circuit recognized that Ms. Smith’s Communication Clause challenge hinges on her Accommodation Clause challenge. (So much so that Colorado devoted less than two pages at the tail end of its brief to the Communication Clause and the Tenth Circuit afforded it just three paragraphs in its free-speech analysis. See Brief for Respondents 44–45; 6 F. 4th, at 1182–1183.) The dissent even suggests that our decision today is akin to endorsing a “separate but equal” regime that would allow law firms to refuse women admission into partnership, restaurants to deny service to Black Americans, or businesses seeking employees to post something like a “White Applicants Only” sign. Post, at 1, 16–21, 26, 28–29, 32, and n. 13, 37. Pure fiction all.
In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse “the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services” based on a customer’s protected status, post, at 27, the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services “to the public” does have a right “to decide what messages to include or not to include,” post, at 28. But if that is true, what are we even debating?
Instead of addressing the parties’ stipulations about the case actually before us, the dissent spends much of its time adrift on a sea of hypotheticals about photographers, stationers, and others, asking if they too provide expressive services covered by the First Amendment. Post, at 27–29, 31–32, 37. But those cases are not this case. Doubtless, determining what qualifies as expressive activity protected by the First Amendment can sometimes raise difficult questions. But this case presents no complication of that kind. The parties have stipulated that Ms. Smith seeks to engage in expressive activity. And the Tenth Circuit has recognized her services involve “pure speech.” See supra, at 6, 9. Nothing the dissent says can alter this—nor can it displace the First Amendment protections that follow.
The dissent’s treatment of precedent parallels its handling of the facts. Take its remarkable suggestion that a government forcing an individual to create speech on weighty issues with which she disagrees—all, as the Tenth Circuit found, with the goal of “[e]liminating” views it does not share, 6 F. 4th, at 1178—only “incidental[ly]” burdens First Amendment liberties. Post, at 26–35. Far from embracing a notion like that, our cases have rejected it time after time—including in the context of public accommodations laws. See Parts II–IV, supra; FAIR, 547 U. S., at 61– 64 (no government may affect a “speaker’s own message” by “forc[ing]” her to “accommodate” views she does not hold); Hurley, 515 U. S., at 563, 566 (using a public accommodations law to compel parade organizers to include speech they did not believe was no mere “‘incidental’” infringement on First Amendment rights); Dale, 530 U. S., at 659 (employing a public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to alter their admissions policies had more than “an incidental effect on protected speech”).</blockquote>
Smith said she was willing to work with anyone regardless of their sexual orientation, but objected to being forced to build wedding websites for same-sex couples because same-sex marriage goes against her deeply held beliefs.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
“There are some messages I can’t create no matter who requests them,” Smith <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-lorie-smith/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in December.
Smith said she delayed expanding her business to start designing wedding websites because she was worried her beliefs would bump up against a Colorado public accommodations law. Colorado argued that Smith simply wanted to discriminate against same-sex couples and said the public accommodations law governs the conduct, not the speech of a person running a Colorado business.
Mairead Elordi contributed to this report.

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Group Photo

Gorsuch Lambasts Sotomayor’s Dissent In Christian Web Designer Ruling: ‘Opens Fire On Its Own Position’

Gorsuch Lambasts Sotomayor's Dissent In Christian Web Designer Ruling: 'Opens Fire On Its Own Position'

Neil Gorsuch

Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro used a baseball analogy to refute the dissents written by Justices <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ketanji-brown-jackson">Ketanji Brown Jackson</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/sonia-sotomayor" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sonia Sotomayor</a> in Thursday&#8217;s landmark Supreme Court case that rolled back affirmative action policies at universities.
In a Friday Twitter post, Shapiro applied the justices&#8217; logic in favor of affirmative action to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/baseball" target="_blank" rel="noopener">baseball</a> “to see how idiotic and counterproductive it is&#8221; and illuminate that lowering standards to artificially boost black participation in the long-run hurts, rather than helps, racial tensions and equality.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The logic that Jackson and Sotomayor want to endorse essentially states that in order to rectify past discrimination, current discrimination must be utilized. Let&#8217;s apply that example to baseball to see how idiotic and counterproductive this is.
Imagine, for a moment, that…
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1674768809440182272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Imagine, for a moment, that instead of MLB breaking the color line by recruiting the very best players from the Negro Leagues beginning in the mid-1940s, they had instead changed the rules of the game: black pitchers would now only need to throw two strikes to strike out white batters, and black batters would get four strikes before striking out.” Shapiro wrote. “This would be designed in order to artificially boost the statistics of black players, making them more competitive in MLB.”
But, Shapiro noted, this would have decreased the quality of baseball and exacerbated racial tensions at the same time — the opposite of what Sotomayor and Jackson claim is their goal.
“Would this improve the quality of baseball or decrease it? Would it make for better and more competitive black players in the future, such that the rules could later be made the same for everyone while achieving &#8216;racial balance,&#8217; or decrease such chances? Would it exacerbate racial tensions or close them?”
Echoing Chief Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-roberts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Roberts</a>’ majority opinion, Shapiro concluded that the way to remedy past discrimination is not discrimination today. He argues that doing so in the MLB was unnecessary because black players did not need standards lowered for them to compete with white players. College admissions, similarly, should focus on merit, not race.
“If you argue that this was unnecessary in baseball because top black players could already compete despite the discrimination against them — YES. That&#8217;s the point I&#8217;m making. It&#8217;s true in baseball and it&#8217;s true in college admissions. The only way to remedy past discrimination is NOT present discrimination. It never was,” he continued.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1687972190386000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2poz7lKxiyhNV9ljBcMSzM">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Shapiro said that his tweet should not be misconstrued in a way to mean he is against challenging policies that cause specific harm.
“This is distinct from the argument that those who have specific damages from specific policies should be able to receive redress from those who damaged them specifically. That&#8217;s basic tort law. What we&#8217;re talking about is a regime of racial &#8216;correctives&#8217; that don&#8217;t correct, they merely make things far worse.”

Daily Wire Presents Backstage Live

Ben Shapiro Throws Beanball At Affirmative Action, Liberal Justices

Affirmative Action

Baseball

Ben Shapiro

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to recuse herself from multiple copyright infringement cases involving book publisher Penguin Random House despite having been paid millions by the firm for her books, making it by far her largest source of income, records show.
In 2010, she got a $1.2 million book advance from Knopf Doubleday Group, a part of the conglomerate. In 2012, she reported receiving two advance payments from the publisher totaling $1.9 million.
In 2013, Sotomayor voted in a decision for whether the court should hear a case against the publisher called <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041513zor_p86b.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Aaron Greenspan v. Random House</a>. Greenspan was a Harvard classmate of Mark Zuckerberg&#8217;s who wrote a book about the founding of Facebook and contended that Random House rejected his book proposal and then awarded a deal to another author who copied his book and eventually turned it into the movie <a href="https://casetext.com/case/greenspan-v-random-house-inc-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Social Network</a>.
In 2017, Sotomayor began receiving payments each year from Penguin Random House itself, which continued annually through at least 2021, the most recent disclosure available, and totaled more than $500,000. In all, she received $3.6 million from Penguin Random House or its subsidiaries, according to a Daily Wire tally of financial disclosures.
In October 2019, children&#8217;s author Jennie Nicassio petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her lawsuit against Penguin Random House alleging that the book publisher had copied her book by selling one that was nearly identical. On the same day that the petition was distributed to the justices, Sotomayor received a $10,586 check from the publisher.
On February 24, 2020, the Supreme Court voted not to hear the case, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-560.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">denying</a> the “writ of certiorari” and meaning that the case would remain where it left off — with a circuit court having found in the publisher’s favor. Sotomayor&#8217;s next check, coming in May of that year, was her largest ever from the parent company, at $82,807.
The Supreme Court does not reveal how individual justices vote when it comes to “cert,” but it does note when they recuse, which Sotomayor did not.
Fellow then-justice Stephen Breyer, by contrast, did recuse from the 2013 and 2020 Penguin cases. His wife is related to the family that founded a company, Pearson, which owned a stake in the publisher, and the couple held stock in Pearson: $1 million to $5 million in 2013, shrinking to $100,000 to $250,000 by 2020. Breyer also wrote books for the publisher, though he earned a much smaller amount than Sotomayor.
Sotomayor&#8217;s Penguin Random House money dwarfed the pay that she received from the court and made up all of her reported outside earned income, with the exception of $6,000 in payments from groups — some of which related to her book — and a $5,000 &#8220;option fee,&#8221; which typically relates to books, according to the disclosures. The publisher also footed the bill for her to speak to various groups. Breyer, by contrast, would typically have those groups foot the bill.
Lawyers for Nicassio made a compelling argument that her case was worthy of being taken up by the Supreme Court. Nicassio wrote a book called &#8220;Rocky&#8221; which “tells the story of a little evergreen tree named Rocky who dreams of becoming the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree and embarks on an adventure toward that goal” against all adversity, getting advice from a mentor and facing attack by other plants, they wrote. Penguin Random House then published a book called &#8220;Albert&#8221; in which all of the same occurs, with the name of the Christmas tree changed. The lawyers said &#8220;Albert&#8221; even lifted key pieces of language from &#8220;Rocky,&#8221; and that the publisher had legally conceded that the work was copied.
The lawyers said that the Third Circuit found against Nicassio anyway because of a rule used in a handful of circuits in which a work is not considered wrongfully copied if similar elements would “naturally flow” from a “simplified version of the original plot.” In other words, taking for granted that there is a puny evergreen that wants to become the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree, it would not be surprising that multiple authors would each imagine the tree facing adversity — setting aside the obvious similarities of the premise itself.
The rule tightly construing what constitutes copyright infringement created a problem that was ripe for resolution by the Supreme Court, the lawyers argued, because the rule used by the Third Circuit was “radically different” from the one used by other circuits. “In the majority of the Circuits, the opposite outcome would have occurred,” they wrote. A Supreme Court ruling would serve to unify the understanding of the law.
Penguin Random House and Viacom — which was also sued by the author because &#8220;Albert&#8221; was also made into a movie, meaning others seemingly took Nicassio&#8217;s idea and then made far more money off of it than she did — did not file any motion in response to the petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case.
The case being heard by the high court would be of significant concern to publishers because it could set a precedent that could open the floodgates to many other copyright infringement suits against them.
The Supreme Court did not return a request for comment.
Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009, is a prolific author, pumping out the memoir &#8220;My Beloved World&#8221; and children’s books such as &#8220;Turning Pages: My Life Story;&#8221; &#8220;A Judge Grows In the Bronx;&#8221; &#8220;Just Ask! Be Different, Be Brave, Be You.&#8221; Her latest, &#8220;Just Help! How to Build a Better World,&#8221; was published in 2022, after the most recent financial disclosure, by a Penguin Books imprint.
The findings come amidst a seemingly coordinated push in the media <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ted-cruz-blasts-partisan-democrat-ethics-reviews-of-conservative-supreme-court-justices" target="_blank" rel="noopener">accusing</a> a slew of conservative justices of misconduct related to their financial disclosures, such as Justice Clarence Thomas taking trips financed by a wealthy conservative friend. Fix The Court, a nonpartisan group that has long watchdogged Supreme Court finances and which compiled some of the financial disclosures used in The Daily Wire’s analysis, pointed out that Sotomayor <a href="https://fixthecourt.com/2022/06/justice-sotomayor-amends-financial-disclosure-include-six-free-trips-previously-omitted/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">failed to disclose six trips</a> in 2016 funded by outside groups, before later correcting her disclosures.
Fix The Court has criticized the conservative justices on financial disclosures more than anyone has, but even it said that media had <a href="https://fixthecourt.com/2023/05/reacting-and-overreacting-to-the-justices-perceived-ethics-lapses/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">overreacted</a> with stories about right-leaning justices this month, calling an issue with Justice Neil Gorsuch selling a house misleading and saying breathless findings about Chief Justice John Roberts&#8217; wife working as a legal recruiter &#8220;much ado about nothing.&#8221;

Liberal SCOTUS Justice Took $3M From Book Publisher, Didn’t Recuse From Its Cases

Vox writer Ian Millhiser slammed late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg&#8217;s &#8220;arrogance&#8221; and called on sitting Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to consider retiring rather than risk the possibility of an unfavorable Senate makeup later.
&#8220;Sotomayor and Kagan need to think about retiring,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23507944/supreme-court-sonia-sotomayor-elena-kagan-ruth-bader-ginsburg-retire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">headline read</a>, and the sub-headline added the reason for his deep concern. The Senate, he alleged, was a &#8220;fundamentally broken institution&#8221; — and for that reason, Democratic justices needed to plan accordingly.
&#8220;We have now lived with the consequences of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s late-life arrogance for more than two years,&#8221; Millhiser wrote to open the piece, and then he went on to detail why he believed Ginsburg should have retired while former President Barack Obama was still in the White House and had a friendly Senate.
The problem he outlined — at least as far as Sotomayor, 68, and Kagan, 62, are concerned — was that Democrats could very well lose the Senate in two years&#8217; time, and he worried that it would be a long time before the <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/21/should-justices-sotomayor-and-kagan-retire/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">balance of power</a> shifted in their favor again.
But then Millhiser got to the crux of the matter, revealing that his real problem was not actually the &#8220;so brutal&#8221; Senate map expected in 2024 — rather, he took issue with the Senate&#8217;s designated role as it was written into the U.S. Constitution: to balance the power of the states with the power of the people.
Calling the Senate &#8220;<a href="https://dailywire.com/news/democrats-are-going-about-house-and-senate-popular-ashe-schow/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">malapportioned</a>,&#8221; he argued that the Constitution gave &#8220;extra representation to Republicans in small states&#8221; — and that was the real reason that Democrats were unlikely to regain the majority (according to his math) until 2030 or even later.
&#8220;If Sotomayor and Kagan do not retire within the next two years, in other words, they could doom the entire country to live under a 7–2 or even an 8–1 Court controlled by an increasingly radicalized Republican Party’s appointees,&#8221; Millhiser complained.
Slate&#8217;s Mark Joseph Stern agreed with Millhiser, saying, &#8220;I think Sotomayor and Kagan are brilliant justices and I’d be sad to see them go. But Ian is indisputably correct about the political calculus here. After 2025, Democrats may not hold the White House and the Senate for a decade+. This argument should be taken seriously.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I think Sotomayor and Kagan are brilliant justices and I’d be sad to see them go. But Ian is indisputably correct about the political calculus here. After 2025, Democrats may not hold the White House and the Senate for a decade+. This argument should be taken seriously. <a href="https://t.co/VU0vQWPCxa">https://t.co/VU0vQWPCxa</a>
&mdash; Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) <a href="https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1605654255678984209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And while a fair number of Democrats agreed with his assessment, some also pointed out the fact that Ginsburg had been older and her health had not been as good when she opted to remain on the bench. The late justice had also <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-ginsburg/u-s-justice-ginsburg-hits-back-at-liberals-who-want-her-to-retire-idUSKBN0G12V020140801" target="_blank" rel="noopener">made it clear</a> that she would not bow to popular opinion when it came to calls for her retirement, saying, &#8220;So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?&#8221;

U.S. Supreme Court Women Justices Are Honored On Capitol Hill For Women’s History Month

Vox Writer Slams RBG ‘Arrogance,’ Says Kagan And Sotomayor Should Take One For The Team And Retire

Vox Writer Slams 'Arrogant' RBG, Says Kagan And Sotomayor Should Retire

Media

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor opened up about her friendship with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during a Thursday appearance at Roosevelt University in Chicago.
During <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/sonia-sotomayor">Sotomayor&#8217;s</a> appearance, the liberal justice was asked about how she maintains relationships with justices who have different legal philosophies than her, specifically the conservative <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/clarence-thomas">Thomas</a>.
&#8220;I try to find the good in everybody,&#8221; Sotomayor <a href="https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/1583264965674532864?s=20&amp;t=l9RRECXmT-Z4fwWXkJIoBA">shared</a>, according to CNN&#8217;s Eric Bradner. &#8220;Because if I can treat them as people with good things inside of me, they can feel it. They can feel that there are things inside them that I value. And they&#8217;re more wiling to talk to me &#8230; and do it in a respectful way, where we can value each other.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Justice Sonia Sotomayor did a talk in Chicago tonight hosted by Roosevelt University. She was asked how she maintains relationships with judges she disagrees with — Clarence Thomas, in particular. Here’s what she said: <a href="https://t.co/jCy3J0eoEy">pic.twitter.com/jCy3J0eoEy</a>
&mdash; Eric Bradner (@ericbradner) <a href="https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/1583264965674532864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 21, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I have disagreed more with him [Thomas] than with any other justice,&#8221; she added. &#8220;Which means we don&#8217;t come together on many cases. And yet I can tell you that I spend time with him, understanding that he is one of the few justices who knows practically everybody in our building. He knows their name, he knows the things about their life, what their family is suffering. He&#8217;ll tell me, you know that person&#8217;s wife is sick right now, or that person&#8217;s child is having difficulty.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
She’s a Justice, author, activist, intellectual and peacemaker. What a great end to my Chicago visit to hear Sonia Sotomayor speak to <a href="https://twitter.com/RooseveltU?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RooseveltU</a> students/guests! She was endearing speaking directly to attendees. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DiversityandInclusion?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DiversityandInclusion</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/socialjustice?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#socialjustice</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RepresentationMatters?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RepresentationMatters</a> <a href="https://t.co/MRnrWEZdlH">pic.twitter.com/MRnrWEZdlH</a>
&mdash; Dr. Sadhana Jackson (@DrSadhanaJ) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrSadhanaJ/status/1583256601997504514?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 21, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;There&#8217;s no other justice who does that,&#8221; Sotomayor continued. &#8220;I try, but he does it better. He cares about people. Now, he cares on legal interests differently. And he sees those legal issues much differently than I do.  I tell people, you know Clarence believes, just like him, because he grew up very, very poor, that everyone is capable of picking themselves up by their bootstraps. I understand that some people can&#8217;t reach their bootstraps. That&#8217;s a fundamental difference in how we view what the law can or should or does do for people. But I can appreciate him.&#8221;
Sotomayor was appointed by former President Barack Obama in May 2009 and has served since August 2009. Thomas was appointed by the late-former President George H. W. Bush in 1991 to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall and has served ever since.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-clarence-thomas-gets-surprise-defense-from-justice-sotomayor">Justice Clarence Thomas Gets Surprise Defense — From Justice Sotomayor</a>

Justice Sotomayor_Justice Thomas-2

Justice Sotomayor Opens Up About Friendly Relationship With Justice Thomas

Supreme Court Justice <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/justice-sotomayor-missed-the-mark-on-covid-19-and-kids-by-over-95000-the-view-hosts-blow-it-off-it-happens/">Sonia Sotomayor</a> made it clear on Thursday that despite differing judicial philosophies, she held her colleague Justice Clarence Thomas in the highest regard.
Sotomayor made the comments during a public speech at the American Constitution Society, speaking to the audience about the man she called &#8220;friend&#8221; in spite of their fairly regular differences of opinion.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“Justice Thomas is the one justice in the building that literally knows every employee’s name, every one of them. . . . he is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution, about the people who work there — about people.” &#8211; Justice Sotomayor <a href="https://t.co/Pz4TKWeFi3">pic.twitter.com/Pz4TKWeFi3</a>
&mdash; JCN (@judicialnetwork) <a href="https://twitter.com/judicialnetwork/status/1537840337317777417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I suspect I have probably disagreed with him more than with any other justice, that we have not joined each other&#8217;s opinions more than anybody else,&#8221; Sotomayor said of Thomas. &#8220;And yet, Justice Thomas is the one justice in the building that literally knows every employee’s name — every one of them. And not only does he know their names, he knows their families&#8217; names and their histories. He&#8217;s the first one who will go up to someone when you&#8217;re walking with him and say, &#8216;Is your son okay? How&#8217;s your daughter doing in college?&#8217; He&#8217;s the first one that when my stepfather died, sent me flowers in Florida. He is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution, about the people who work there, but about people.&#8221;
&#8220;He has a different vision than I do about how to help people and about their responsibilities to help themselves,&#8221; Sotomayor said, adding that Thomas truly believed that anyone could pull themselves up by their bootstraps — but her opinion was that some people needed just a little extra help in order to get to their bootstraps.
&#8220;But I think we share a common understanding about people and kindness toward them. That&#8217;s why I can be friends with him and still continue our daily battle over our difference of opinions in cases,&#8221; Sotomayor concluded, prompting laughter when she over-emphasized the words &#8220;daily battle.&#8221;
Sotomayor&#8217;s comments come amid calls for <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/media-claims-ginni-thomas-was-agitating-about-trumps-election-loss-on-a-listserv-thats-not-what-happened/">Thomas&#8217;s wife Ginni</a> to stand before the January 6 Committee — and the wait for a <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/abortion-activist-arrested-for-chaining-himself-to-scotus-fence-claims-authorities-dropped-charges-out-of-fear-of-public-perception/">Supreme Court ruling</a> in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization.
&#8220;Supreme Court Justices are patriots. They are not about politics. Watching Justice Sotomayor talk this way about Justice Thomas is beautiful. They are patriots, even when we, and they, disagree with opinions. The late Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg loved each other,&#8221; Carmine Sabia <a href="https://twitter.com/CarmineSabia/status/1537953525275144192">remarked</a> in a tweet.
And while many agreed that it was refreshing to see two justices who disagreed — so often and so fully — still be respectful of each other as human beings, there were also a number who could not reconcile their feelings about Thomas.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t doubt that Justice Thomas knows every employee&#8217;s name. He certainly knew Anita Hill&#8217;s name when she worked for him,&#8221; Aura Bogado <a href="https://twitter.com/aurabogado/status/1537935278999932929">tweeted</a>.
Noah Berlatsky <a href="https://twitter.com/nberlat/status/1537951663108943872">added</a>, &#8220;People are pointing out the issues with Ginni, but it&#8217;s also worth noting that Clarence Thomas has been very credibly accused of workplace sexual harassment.&#8221;

Justice Clarence Thomas Gets Surprise Defense — From Justice Sotomayor

Justice Sonia Sotomayor Defends Justice Clarence Thomas

Abortion

Ginni Thomas

January 6

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested in December 2021 that the court would not &#8220;survive the stench&#8221; if it upheld a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks.
Sotomayor weighed in on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court case involving a 2018 Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks, addressing whether bans on abortion before fetal viability are constitutional.
“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” the justice <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/583814-sotomayor-suggests-court-wouldnt-survive-stench-if-abortion-rights/amp/">asked</a> an attorney who backed the Mississippi law in late 2021, suggesting that the Supreme Court would be seen as highly politicized. “I don’t see how it is possible.”
On Monday evening, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473">Politico revealed</a> a draft opinion showing that the justices will likely rule to overturn Roe v. Wade. The news has sparked nationwide protests and frenzy as pro-abortion rights supporters grapple with the potential that Roe v. Wade could soon be overturned.
Experts and political commentators on the right <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/abortion-supporters-leaked-supreme-court-draft-to-intimidate-the-court-pro-life-advocates-say">have suggested</a> that the draft opinion was leaked, most likely by a progressive Supreme Court clerk, in efforts to intimidate the court and change its decision.
It has not yet been determined who the leaker is.
“The leak appears to be totally political in nature, not only intended to damage the Court and pressure the justices, but more immediately to incite Democrats to push their laundry list of terrible anti-life ideas, including blowing up the filibuster and attempting to codify abortion violence at the federal level prior to the November elections,” Katie Glenn, Government Affairs Counsel at Americans United for Life (AUL), told The Daily Wire late Monday evening.
The draft majority opinion, which is not final, says Roe v. Wade was egregiously wrong. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote, according to POLITICO. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Judicial Crisis Network&#8217;s President Carrie Severino <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/conservatives-legal-experts-call-for-justices-to-release-roe-v-wade-decision">said</a> the unprecedented <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473">news</a> merits an “unprecedented response” — that the “Court should release its majority opinion as soon as possible.”
“Obviously no one can actually force the Chief Justice’s hand,” Severino told The Daily Wire, “but he may want to release the opinion early to avoid exposing the Court to further pressure and intimidation tactics that risk undermining the Court as an institution as a result of the draft opinion hanging out there for what could be months.”
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board also discussed Tuesday how fast the court should move to release its decision.
&#8220;There’s an argument for getting it out fast to make it a fait accompli,&#8221; the WSJ Editorial Board <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-leak-on-roe-v-wade-samuel-alito-john-roberts-abortion-draft-opinion-11651605792?mod=opinion_lead_pos1">said</a>. &#8220;Politico said the Alito draft was circulated in February, so the Justices have had ample time to absorb it and respond. We hate to say this, but some abortion fanatic could decide to commit an act of violence to stop a 5-4 ruling. It’s an awful thought, but we live in fanatical times.&#8221;

Screen Shot 2022-05-04 at 11.08.10 AM

Flashback: Justice Sotomayor Suggested SCOTUS Would Not ‘Survive The Stench’ If Court Upheld Mississippi Abortion Law

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Once Suggested Court Would Not 'Survive The Stench' Of Abortion Case

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch released a joint statement Wednesday refuting a report from NPR, calling it simply &#8220;false.&#8221;
Notably, NPR <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073428376/supreme-court-justices-arent-scorpions-but-not-happy-campers-either">reported</a> Tuesday that Sotomayor was refusing to do her job in-person because Gorsuch, who is vaccinated and boosted like Sotomayor, is refusing to wear a mask after being asked.
&#8220;Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us,&#8221; the statement said. &#8220;It is false.&#8221;
&#8220;While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends,&#8221; the statement added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
JUST IN. SCOTUS releases a short joint statement from Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch:
&quot;Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.&quot;
&mdash; SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1483841138079453188?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The report started to crack Tuesday evening, when Fox News reported that their source refuted the claim.
Speaking to Fox News&#8217; Bret Baier, network host and reporter Shannon Bream noted that the NPR report said Sotomayor &#8220;did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked.”
“Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other Justices to mask up,&#8221; the NPR report claimed.
&#8220;It then says that Justice Gorsuch who normally sits right next to Sotomayor on the bench has repeatedly refused to do so and that’s forced Justice Sotomayor to operate remotely from her office for arguments and conferences,&#8221; Bream outlined.
&#8220;I am told that is not accurate,&#8221; the Fox News host asserted.
&#8220;A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments,&#8221; she explained. &#8220;The source further stated Justice Sotomayor did not make any such request to Justice Gorsuch. I&#8217;m told, given that fact, there was also no refusal by Justice Gorsuch.&#8221;
&#8220;The Justices are all vaccinated and boosted and they do test before taking the bench for arguments,&#8221; Bream noted.
Partial transcript <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2022/01/18/shannon-bream-busts-fake-news-npr-gorsuch-spiteful-masking">via</a> NewsBusters: 
<blockquote>BRET BAIER: You know, Shannon, there is another mask story at the Supreme Court grabbing headlines about a dispute apparently over the justices wearing or not wearing masks. What have you been able to find out?
SHANNON BREAM: Okay. So, NPR published this story, Bret, saying that Justice Sotomayor, who has diabetes and has regularly been wearing a mask on the bench during arguments, expressed that she, quote, “Did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked.”
The story goes on to say, “Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other Justices to mask up.” It then says that Justice Gorsuch who normally sits right next to Sotomayor on the bench has repeatedly refused to do so and that’s forced Justice Sotomayor to operate remotely from her office for arguments and conferences.  I am told that is not accurate.
A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments. The source further stated Justice Sotomayor did not make any such request to Justice Gorsuch. I&#8217;m told, given that fact, there was also no refusal by Justice Gorsuch.
The Justices are all vaccinated and boosted and they do test before taking the bench for arguments. Bret.
BAIER: There you go. Straight in and out for us. We will see you tonight, Shannon. Thanks.</blockquote>

Gorsuch, Sotomayor

Gorsuch, Sotomayor Release Joint Statement Calling NPR Report About Mask ‘False’

Face Masks

National Public Radio (NPR)

NPR <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073428376/supreme-court-justices-arent-scorpions-but-not-happy-campers-either">reported</a> Tuesday that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was refusing to do her job in-person because fellow Justice Neil Gorsuch, who is vaccinated and boosted like Sotomayor, is refusing to wear a mask after being asked.
The report, however, was quickly contradicted by reporting from Fox News&#8217; Shannon Bream Tuesday evening.
Speaking to Fox News&#8217; Bret Baier, Bream noted that the NPR report said Sotomayor &#8220;did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked.”
“Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other Justices to mask up,&#8221; the NPR report claimed.
&#8220;It then says that Justice Gorsuch who normally sits right next to Sotomayor on the bench has repeatedly refused to do so and that’s forced Justice Sotomayor to operate remotely from her office for arguments and conferences,&#8221; Bream outlined.
&#8220;I am told that is not accurate,&#8221; the Fox News host asserted.
&#8220;A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments,&#8221; she explained. &#8220;The source further stated Justice Sotomayor did not make any such request to Justice Gorsuch. I&#8217;m told, given that fact, there was also no refusal by Justice Gorsuch.&#8221;
&#8220;The Justices are all vaccinated and boosted and they do test before taking the bench for arguments,&#8221; Bream noted.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨EXCLUSIVE<a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FoxNews</a> Supreme Court reporter <a href="https://twitter.com/ShannonBream?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ShannonBream</a> airs inaccurate reporting today by <a href="https://twitter.com/NinaTotenberg?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NinaTotenberg</a>:
“A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments.” <a href="https://t.co/petcj6q1nK">pic.twitter.com/petcj6q1nK</a>
&mdash; 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) <a href="https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1483590769806135297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As highlighted by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/liberal-sotomayor-wont-attend-scotus-in-person-because-gorsuch-wont-wear-a-mask-report">The Daily Wire</a>, Sotomayor recently made false statements while hearing arguments regarding President Joe Biden&#8217;s vaccine mandates for private businesses and health care workers.
“We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators,&#8221; the justice falsely stated.
“The number is not 100,000, it’s roughly 3,500 in hospitals now,&#8221; Baier corrected.
Partial transcript <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2022/01/18/shannon-bream-busts-fake-news-npr-gorsuch-spiteful-masking">via</a> NewsBusters: 
<blockquote>BRET BAIER: You know, Shannon, there is another mask story at the Supreme Court grabbing headlines about a dispute apparently over the justices wearing or not wearing masks. What have you been able to find out?
SHANNON BREAM: Okay. So, NPR published this story, Bret, saying that Justice Sotomayor, who has diabetes and has regularly been wearing a mask on the bench during arguments, expressed that she, quote, “Did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked.”
The story goes on to say, “Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other Justices to mask up.” It then says that Justice Gorsuch who normally sits right next to Sotomayor on the bench has repeatedly refused to do so and that’s forced Justice Sotomayor to operate remotely from her office for arguments and conferences.  I am told that is not accurate.
A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments. The source further stated Justice Sotomayor did not make any such request to Justice Gorsuch. I&#8217;m told, given that fact, there was also no refusal by Justice Gorsuch.
The Justices are all vaccinated and boosted and they do test before taking the bench for arguments. Bret.
BAIER: There you go. Straight in and out for us. We will see you tonight, Shannon. Thanks.</blockquote>

Fox News: NPR Report About Justice Gorsuch Not Accurate

Menu