We Got Nothin’: Guess What Justice Sotomayor Says Is Comparable to ‘Gender Affirming’ Mastectomies

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Remember when Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was hailed as a ‘wise Latina’? We do.

Since her appointment to the nation’s highest court, however, she’s been an interesting jurist with some interesting takes on everything from OSHA vaccine mandates to admitting she cries when the conservative-majority court issues a ruling she doesn’t like.

Yesterday, we told you how Sotomayor said the risks of so-called ‘gender affirming care’ are no different than the risks that come from taking aspirin (trust us, they are).

Today, this absolute gem drops:

Justice Sotomayor compared “unwanted breasts” to “unwanted hair” when discussing double mastectomies being performed on girls, before cracking a joke.#USvsSkrmetti pic.twitter.com/E2e7TtZN9P

— Genevieve Gluck (@WomenReadWomen) December 4, 2024

Yeah. We got nothin’.

They are not the same thing. Not at all.

There was that woman who blinded herself with draino…I guess opthalmology must now defer to the phenomenon of unwanted eyeballs

— GJ2 (@Kindun526) December 4, 2024

Guess so.

It should be immediately disqualifying of a judge if they believe that children can be born in the wrong bodies. I question their intelligence, their experience, I question everything. They are too stupid and have been duped by a mutilation cult.

— XX=Female 🩷 (@xxwoman471377) December 5, 2024

Amen.

She seems to have already made up her mind.

— Billy Bragg (@Serena_Partrick) December 4, 2024

She absolutely has.

Sotomayor: “if a sex-neutral looking child walks up to a doctor” in a social setting, isn’t doc inferring the wrong sex discrimination?

No. This is not about a doctor in a social setting – it’s a doctor knowing the sex in a medical setting where that info is important.

— bona fide sola fide joe🦬 (@solaverbo) December 4, 2024

Recommended

Advertisement

She. Should. Know. This.

She asks if there is discrimination on the basis of the immutable characteristic of sex in which children are allowed to try to change that immutable characteristic? But gender identity argues that sex is irrelevant or a spectrum or doesn’t exist?

— Smithiness (@Smithiness) December 4, 2024

Yeah.

Make it make sense.

At this point, even liberals must have some buyer’s remorse about their Affirmative Action Justices.

You’ve got that Jewish lesbian—she’s no Brandeis, but you can live with that. But then you’ve got this moron and the talkative black lady. https://t.co/qtsnR7enMK

— David Pinsen (@dpinsen) December 5, 2024

Sotomayor is an embarassment.

It’s a cult. A vile, vile CULT. https://t.co/NIds7T3Oo5

— Brandon M Showalter (@BrandonMShow) December 5, 2024

Yes it is.

Good lord.

I cannot believe she thinks that unwanted hair is in any way compared to an unwanted body part/limb/organ/genital.

For any confusion, one grows back. The other VERY clearly does not.

Holy moly

— Christopher O’Flynn, M.Ed (@MuinteoirChris) December 4, 2024

It’s so bad.