Sonia Sotomayor

This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies. I will not stand by silently as a state continues to nullify this constitutional guarantee. I dissent.

What`s the difference between this and telling employers, where sparks are flying in the workplace, your workers have to be -- wear a mask?

The court should have put an end to this madness months ago before the ban first went into effect. It failed to do so then. It fails again today. The court just betrays not only the citizens of Texas but also our constitutional system of…

This choice to shrink from Texas challenge to federal supremacy will have far-reaching repercussions. I doubt the court, let alone the country, is prepared for them. The court should have put an end to this madness months ago.

This looks like nullification. We have a constitutionally protected right to abortion in this country, this state says, we`ve come up with this clever way to nullify it, and this court is going to OK it.

If people actually believe that it`s all political, how will we survive? How will the court survive?

The right of a woman to choose, the right to control her own body has been clearly set since Casey and never challenged.

Now, the sponsors of this bill, the House bill, in Mississippi, said we’re doing it because we have new justices. Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are…

Now the sponsors of this bill, the House bill, in Mississippi, said we`re doing it because we have new justices. Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are…

When does the life of a woman and putting her at risk enter the calculus? Meaning, right now, forcing women who are poor, and that`s 75 percent of the population, and much higher percentage of those women in Mississippi, who elect…

The sponsors of this bill, the House bill in Mississippi, said, we`re doing it because we have new justices.

the promise of future adjudication offers cold comfort for Texas women seeking abortion care who are entitled to relief now. These women will suffer personal harm from delaying their medical care and as their pregnancies progress, they may…

The promise of future adjudications offers cold comfort, however, for Texas women seeking abortion care who are entitled to relief now.

the impact is catastrophic. I cannot capture the totality of this harm in these pages.

This is untenable. It cannot be the case that a state can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.

The extraordinary step of enlisting private citizens to do what the state could not, the Texas legislature has deputized the state’s citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors` medical…

the court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligation to protect not only the rights of women but also the sanctity of its precedent, and the rule of law, period. I dissent, period.

You can`t have offered this as a precedent for any state that wants to curtail constitutional rights to private enforcement, right?

The act is a breathtaking act of defiance -- correct -- of the Constitution, of this Court`s precedents, and of the rights of women seeking abortion throughout Texas.

Flagrantly unconstitutional, that’s what Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor calls this Texas abortion ban, which is now law.

If you just can’t vote for those reasons and your vote is not being counted, you’ve been denied the right to vote, haven’t you?

the government gives no compelling reason why it suddenly cannot wait a few weeks. This is not justice. There could be no justice on the fly in matters of life and death.

it has effectively become an entity that no one can control.

In Korematsu the Court gave a pass to an odious, gravely injurious racial classification authored by an Executive order and basically the Court invoked an ill-defined national security threat to justify an exclusionary policy in sweeping…

What you want is for us to tell you how, as a judicial nominee, we are going to rule on the important issues you find vexing. Any self-respecting judge who comes in with an agenda that would permit that judge to tell you how they will vote…