Sotomayor Exposed Continued

One of her overturned cases continues to build the picture of liberal judicial activist willing to interpret laws strictly or loosely to fit her agenda.

From "Sotomayor's Record Could Give Environmentalists Hope, Business Leaders Pause":

Sotomayor ruled that, according to the relevant statute, the EPA must consider the best technology available -- and cannot factor into the equation the billions it would cost businesses to comply.

"The statutory language requires that the ... selection ... be driven by technology, not cost," read the opinion from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

A ruling straight out of the radical environmental playbook based on the most narrow, torturous reading of the law.

Logically though the Supreme Court disagreed:

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that forcing compliance under Sotomayor's reasoning would make companies spend nine times the amount necessary to accomplish "nearly the same benefit to the environment that cheaper technologies would achieve."

"The EPA's current practice is a reasonable and hence legitimate exercise of its discretion to weigh benefits against costs ... We conclude that the EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis," the majority said in its April decision.

In this case, as in the Mahoney v. Cuomo case, she chose to interpret the law as narrowly as she could to further her agenda.

However, in other cases, like Ricci v. DeStefano, Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, Makesko v. Correctional Services Corporation, Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners and E.E.O.C. v. J.B. Hunt Transport she has expanded the interpretation and scope of the law to further a liberal perspective. In most of these cases she exercised her "empathy" in making said decisions.

Just say no to identity politics; vote no Sonia.

p.s. This article contains a pretty comprehensive and unbiased summary of her more notable rulings.