Sotomayor’s ‘batsh*t’ dissent on Trump immunity has left in uproar over ‘SEAL Team 6’ remark

Fantasies about assassinations and coups filled Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s “batsh*t” dissent in former President Donald Trump’s immunity case that read like a fearmongering audition for corporate media.

“Order the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”

In a 6-3 ruling Monday that melted more snowflakes nationwide than climate hysteria, the Supreme Court determined that, while “not above the law,” a president did hold “absolute immunity” for official acts while in office.

Naturally, the judicial activists of the bench saw fit to react with a doomsaying session akin to claims of insurrection from the defunct January 6 unselect committee that treated the breach of the U.S. Capitol as an attack exceeding the killing of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001.

Joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor asserted the ruling created “a law-free zone around the President,” allowing the executive branch to put his “own interests…above the interests of the Nation.”

“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” argued the dissent with reference to hypotheticals posed during oral arguments. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune.”

“Immune, immune, immune,” she railed before concluding, “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

As word of Sotomayor’s farcical take began circulating, reactions on social media didn’t stop at poking holes in the jurist’s inane arguments. They also made certain to highlight how the member of the highest court in the land had appeared to engage in an all-out Trump Derangement Syndrome struggle session in a dissent that “reads like a legalese version of Orange Man bad.”

Honing in on the concluding remarks from the Supreme Court justice, Newsweek senior editor-at-large and onetime federal appellate judge clerk Josh Hammer contended that she’d done an outstanding job in setting herself for a future role as a talking head on cable news, “Someone get Sonia Sotomayor a MSNBC contributor contract.”

Of course, along with the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching from the openly leftist side of the bench, keyboard kvetchers across the Internet leveraged Sotomayor’s words to reach hyperbolic extremes over how U.S. Navy SEALs could be utilized by a sitting president.

Politico’s Sam Stein had a case of the vapors as he highlighted the opinion with the caption, “genuinely shocking that a Court justice is now on record that the Court has sanctioned that a president can order Seal Team Six to assassinate his political opponent.”

As another propagandist pushed the same take, a retaliatory slam on what the opinion meant had one social media user assert, “No, the Court just ruled 6-3 you can’t read English. Assassinating an opponent is not an official act.”

Kevin Haggerty


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles