ONCE AGAIN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR PROVES SHE BRINGS NO VALUE TO THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAW

The Feres Doctrine is perhaps one of the worst doctrines of judicial activism in the history of the Supreme Court.  The original decision was dead wrong, but its reasoning would have made sense had it been the actual law.

In a very short opinion, the Supreme Court found because the VA effectively had a workers compensation system in place, such as in regular work-related injuries, the active-duty personnel could not sue the military for work related injuries.  We begin with how simple the decision was.  It was very short.

It had two flaws; Congress did not provide for this result.  It was judicial activism.  But it held because the reasoning made sense.  But even in worker compensation cases there are two options.  If you are self-insured the worker can still sue you for actual negligence and not mere work-related injury.  The second option is, regardless of whether you suffered a work-related injury, you were covered.  The latter is no longer true.  If you suffer a heart attack while in the military, you are not assured VA coverage when you leave the military unless you can show the heart attack was work related. 

First Sotomayor agrees Feres is hard to justify, then decides it must hold because of Stare Decisis."

"As my colleague rightly explains, Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135 (1950), is a difficult decision to justify.  ... .  Since it was decided 75 years ago, Feres’s atextual expansion of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U. S. C. §2671 et seq., has garnered near-universal criticism; has caused significant confusion; and has deprived servicemembers and their families of redress for serious harms they have suffered during service to this country."

Atextual means not in the written law but put there by the Supreme Court. 

"Even so, out of respect for the Court’s rules of stare decisis, and in recognition of the reliance interests that Feres has generated, I vote to deny this petition for a writ of certiorari. "

Sotomayor runs from the truth behind her decision to not hear the case.  She is really attacking the Dobbs Majority [reversing Roe v. Wade -abortion] She is doing it at the expense of our military.

Sotomayor could have written a very powerful dissent in Dobb's. showing the Dobb's Court could have gotten to the same result using Roe v. Wade, but it would have meant the truth.  Sotomayor hates the truth.  She plays the law to her own political agenda.

What you see here is, I do not give a pass to a so-called liberal justice.  I call it as I see it.  Also, Sotomayor is a Plantation Democrat, not a Social Democrat. 

Roe had two key components.  First, the court found a woman "does not have an unqualified right to an abortion."  This means the right to an abortion is not absolute but qualified.  The Roe Court went on endlessly about then known medical evidence about life.  The limitation being quickening, when you can feel the baby move, was based on then known medical evidence. 

Based on new medical evidence the Court could have used Roe to pull back when a women's qualified right to an abortion is cut off. 

It was inconceivable Sotomayor would concede Roe had a model which could result in further limiting a woman's right to an abortion.

WHAT WOULD SOTOMAYOR SAY ABOUT "PLESSY V. FERGUSON?"

Plessy v. Ferguson stood for the principle "Separate but Equal is Constitutional. But somehow 50+ years of courts relying on Plessy allowed the Supreme Court to toss Plessy and replace it with Brown v. the Board of Education. "Separate but Equal is Inherently Unconstitutional." 

Sotomayor desperation in her denial of the latest Feres case shows she has no loyalty to any constitutional principle. 

By her own words she could have reaffirmed the so-called liberal idea the law fluctuates with time and interpretation.  She did not.  She used the decision to create a quote for a future opinion we should not mess with Stare Decisis. 

If Sotomayor believed her words yesterday, which she does not, she would have denied certiorari in Brown v. the Board of Education and let stand "Separate but Equal is Constitutional." Sotomayor manipulates her opinions to get to the result she wants.  It is really that simple, and she remains a danger to our Republic. 

THE ORIGINAL JUSTICE JACKSON SAID IT BEST

" I see no reason why I should be consciously wrong today because I was unconsciously wrong yesterday." Massachusetts v. United States, 333 U.S. 611, 639-40 (1948) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

Liberty fluctuates and is not etched in stone.  These were the words of William Blackstone, who summarized the law at the time of our Revolution.  The stone part I added, but Blackstone used the word fluctuates when describing Liberty.