Justice Sotomayor Gets Rich Off a Book-Selling Racket

9
668

The Associated Press reported that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff pushed colleges and libraries hosting her to buy her books. Some of these events aren’t book events.

Sotomayor earned $3.7 million since 2009 when she joined the SCOTUS. Sotomayor’s salary is $285,400 a year. She’s getting very rich off her manifestos. Her books are undoubtedly far left.

Meanwhile, all we hear about is Originalist Justices allegedly taking gifts from rich friends.

Legal Insurrection writes:

The AP mentioned how Sotomayer’s events have been kept “largely out of public view.” But man, we know everything about Justice Clarence Thomas!

The AP also seems shocked “that the justices’ conduct spans their conservative-liberal split.”

NO. WAY. That’s impossible. Only conservatives and those on the right are greedy and unethical!

The AP reports:

In her case, the documents reveal repeated examples of taxpayer-funded court staff performing tasks for the justice’s book ventures, which workers in other branches of government are barred from doing. But when it comes to promoting her literary career, Sotomayor is free to do what other government officials cannot because the Supreme Court does not have a formal code of conduct, leaving the nine justices to largely write and enforce their own rules.

“This is one of the most basic tenets of ethics laws that protects taxpayer dollars from misuse,” said Kedric Payne, a former deputy chief counsel at the Office of Congressional Ethics and current general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan government watchdog group in Washington. “The problem at the Supreme Court is there’s no one there to say whether this is wrong.”

After one event where the school staff worked hard to make it work despite the Justice’s ever-changing schedule, her staff complained about the lack of book sales.

They complained that out of 1,000 attendees, only 250 books were sold. The profits don’t enrich anyone but Sotomayor.

Sotomayor makes remarks that detract from the Court. She lacks knowledge and often misinforms. For example, she continually put out inaccurate statements during the pandemic.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Rochelle Walenksy contradicted one of Justice Sotomayor’s way-out claims made during Court arguments on Jan. 7, 2022. She claimed 100,000 children were hospitalized and extremely ill with COV.

During an interview with “Fox News Sunday” on Jan. 9, Walensky confirmed that there are about 3,500 children in the hospital who have tested positive for COVID-19, the Wuhan virus.

She already earns $285,000 a year as a Justice. What she is doing is unseemly.

 


PowerInbox

9 COMMENTS

  1. Most people are now unaware that Adolf Hitler became wealthy through the sales of his book – Mein Kampf. She’s just following along in the footsteps of one of modern dems heroes.

  2. It is the same with all race quota based hiring in all professions. Sotomayor is a mediocre jurist. Her arguments are not well supported or researched. She “judges” like all liberals do; by feelings. Liberalism is a mental disorder. Hat tip Michael Savage.

    • We can see by her rulings that she is one of these “time to get even” minorities. Her most notable ruing on AA came out east when she ruled without any explanation and was unanimously defeated on appeal. The left put her on the SC because she is a reliable robot. Graham and a few other senate republicans voted for her.

  3. Sotomayor ( just like Ketanji Brown) became a supreme court judge only because of her race.

    She is under qualified, but was chosen for not being white.

    She does not have the wisdom or intelligence or any of the required attributes.

    Her and Brown say things that they don t even understand or don t know enough about.

    Ketanji Brown said that Black doctors double the survival rate of black babies but that is completely false, the actual number is a difference of a fraction of one percent…she sounded dumb and ignorant as if she had no understanding of maths or of statistics, especially when most people were able to correct her easily.

    Those two women are there because of the color of their skin, and because they are females, but it is obvious they are not supreme court judge material.

    They are good examples of why affirmative action is a bad thing.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here