Given the level of constitutional sophistication one would expect of a Supreme Court justice, even one appointed by Democrats, you would further expect they would understand that wearing the robes of the high court precludes blatantly partisan political activity.

Not to mention, sour grapes.

But nobody got that memo to Justice Sonia Sotomayor and, to a lesser degree, to Justice Ruth Ginsberg.

In a recent dissent on a case fought by the Trump administration, one which was decided for the administration, Sotomayor threw a petulant legal fit.

MORE NEWS: Buttigieg invokes scripture to slam Trump, but nobody is buying it

“Claiming one emergency after another, the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each,” she said.

“And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow. Indeed, its behavior relating to the public-charge rule in particular shows how much its own definition of irreparable harm has shifted.”

And then she went for the throat.

“It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.”

The president was not amused.

His point is well taken. As per Ginsberg, she made an inappropriate remark but then apologized for it, perhaps the offense is not as current or grave.

Sotomayor’s tantrum has more to do with the fact that Donald Trump is the president of the United States and has changed the ideological balance of the court by two sound appointments than it does with any point of law.

Thus when she loses she accuses her colleagues on the court of bias in favor of Trump, venting her frustration that the Left can no longer make an end run around the American people by legislating from the high bench.

This attitude on the part of Sotomayor makes her publicly and obviously unable to render an impartial judicial decision on a case regarding the president. Her bias will stop her from making a judgment based on any legitimate interpretation of the Constitution.

A potential juror, except in certain courtrooms run by Democrat appointees, who made a statement like that would be disqualified from serving on the jury. The president is right. A similar rule should apply to justices who do the same thing.

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Man who became whistleblower in Obama-era Homeland Security is found dead on the side of the road
MSNBC’s Joy Reid claims Trump supporters are racists who revolted against ‘smart people’
Queen Elizabeth devastated over ‘hurtful’ Megxit—wants it to be ‘over and done with’

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Political Insider.