I'm willing to bet LeBron got a nice fat check for this

The suspect has a criminal history

'Do you know what he meant?'

News amityville horror Amityville Horror to Get Another Reimagining, This One From David F. Sandberg The Conjuring: Last Rites writers have already penned a script. By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on September 9, 2025 Screenshot: MGM Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: MGM There’s another movie in the works based on The Amityville Horror, the 1977 book by Jay Anson, which outlines the alleged real-life haunting of a house in Amityville, Long Island, where a man murdered six of his family members.  The story was the basis for the 1979 movie of the same name, and spawned many other films of varying quality, including 1983’s Amityville 3-D, 1992’s Amityville: It’s About Time, and, more recently, 2005’s The Amityville Horror remake and 2017’s Amityville: The Awakening. Hollywood loves a good haunted house story, especially one based on a true crime, which means that there are no pesky issues about intellectual property. Given this, it’s not that much of a surprise to find out that another “reimagining” of Amityville Horror is in the works. According to The Hollywood Reporter, David F. Sandberg will direct the new Amityville film for Amazon MGM Studios. Sandberg’s previous credits include the two Shazam! movies, and Annabelle: Creation. He’s working off a script already completed by The Conjuring: Last Rites writers, Ian Goldberg and Richard Naing. Peter Safran, whose jobs include being co-chair of all things DC at Warner Bros. Discovery with James Gunn as well as overseeing his production studio, is involved here as well as a producer via The Safran Company. Safran is also behind The Conjuring franchise, including the Annabelle movies, as well as the Shazam! films.  This project is apparently still in its early days, although the script is already written. No news yet on who will be in cast on the film, or when it will go into production and/or make its way to a theater near you. [end-mark] The post <i>Amityville Horror</i> to Get Another Reimagining, This One From David F. Sandberg appeared first on Reactor.

Books author interviews Art & Legacy in The Macabre: A Conversation With Author Kosoko Jackson “Horror to me is all about taking the intangible and making it tangible and something that can be defeated” By Martin Cahill | Published on September 9, 2025 Photo credit: Sara Nicole Lemon Comment 0 Share New Share Photo credit: Sara Nicole Lemon Recently, Martin Cahill had the opportunity to chat with author Kosoko Jackson (The Forest Demands Its Due, Survive the Dome) to celebrate the release of his adult debut horror novel, The Macabre—a dark fantasy that tells the story of a struggling painter who enters a world of black markets, gothic magic, ancient history, and cursed objects… Please enjoy their full conversation below! Buy the Book The Macabre Kosoko Jackson A picture is worth a thousand nightmares… Buy Book The Macabre Kosoko Jackson A picture is worth a thousand nightmares… A picture is worth a thousand nightmares… Buy this book from: AmazonBarnes and NobleiBooksIndieBoundTarget Martin Cahill: Thanks so much for joining me here! Congratulations on the forthcoming release of The Macabre; the concept is fantastic and that cover freaked me the hell out, which is how you know it’s working. How are you feeling this close to its release? And does it feel brand new for you, or in conversation with your other work? Kosoko Jackson: Thanks so much! I’m so excited for the world to get to read The Macabre. You know, it’s a mixed feeling. I’m excited but not nervous. This is one of my most ambitious novels, and I put so much heart and soul into it, but it’s also not my first time around the block. It took me several books to realize that I like writing books that say something, and I think The Macabre has some of the most widespread statements out of all my books. But I’m trying, in this new phase, to swing bigger, say more, and be bolder. Let’s hope it lands! Martin: I feel like no writer has one way a novel comes to them; can you explain a little of the magic of how The Macabre came to you? Fits and starts? Multiple ideals congealing into one? A seed of an idea that grew? Kosoko: Sure! The Macabre came to me first with one character: Cassandra. You’ll meet her when you read the book but she is my favorite. I then kinda toyed with how I wanted her to play in this book, this nun searching for salvation in all the wrong ways. I toyed with her as a main character, only in letters, a part of the main group, etc. The book then expanded to art and the importance of art in commentary of our history, our artists and the world at large. Funny enough, the book originally, at this stage, was going to be more straightforward—an inherited home and cursed paintings—but I wanted to try something bolder. I then drafted this sort of ‘espionage heist’ theme and ran with it. Martin: Art and its power play a major part of this novel, but so does the idea of legacy, familial and cultural, as well as ideas of ownership of that art and legacy… When did this become a conscious choice to play with? Or was it always baked into the concept? Kosoko: Good question! Moving forward, I try to think of every book as trying to say something. I knew once I narrowed down the international and time aspect of the book that I wanted this book to focus on legacy and culture. Art is so closely tied to culture. Legacy is so closely tied to our history, the legacy we personally leave, our society and our nations leave behind. But also, who gets to decide what that legacy says is important too. Once those ideas came to the forefront, the book clicked into place. Martin: Entering these paintings is a really awesome fantasy device and plot device in your novel; do you have any works of art in the real world that you would enter if you had the chance? Any you’d desperately avoid? Kosoko: There is one I’d LOVE to enter, it’s hanging in my home actually. It’s called “A Storm in Rocky Mountains” by Albert Bierstadt. To me, if the afterlife is anything, it’s this. As for paintings I’m SCARED of? Anything with dolls. They creep me out! Martin: When writing Lewis Dixon, your protagonist, this artist whose goal becomes the destruction of these themes of art and legacy, how did he grow in your mind? Did he ever push back, or surprise you, in that way writers sometimes experience? Kosoko: Funny enough, main characters are the hardest for me. Side characters usually come fully formed and I think, ‘who is the type of character I want to drive this story?’. Lewis’ hardships for me came from making him feel real and also like a formidable ‘leader’ of the story, when you have magic, cursed paintings, international agencies and the like. He’s just a poor painter from Baltimore. I had to make sure he didn’t get swallowed up by the rest of the story. I think the most surprising thing was how bold he was and the choices he made. I thought he’d be more passive. Martin: One of your strengths as a writer is definitely your versatility, moving between young adult and adult fiction, and then within those categories exploring romance and slice of life stories, dystopia and now, your last few projects in YA and adult have been centered around Horror, especially. With this being your adult horror debut, what’s been drawing you to that genre as of late? Do you feel this has been a natural evolution of your work as a writer, or has there been a particular inspiration in the last few years? Kosoko: That is so sweet of you, thank you! Horror to me is all about taking the intangible and making it tangible and something that can be defeated. As I get older, I think more and more about the scarier things in life being things that I cannot see, touch, feel or combat. This story? Legacy, and the ways history can warp the lives of those hundreds of years in the future, and there is little we can do about it. Also colonialism, and the effects of it. I think I want to push myself to write more complex stories, topics and themes. I won’t always stick the landing, but I try to grow with every book. And that to me has been exciting and will continue to excite me. Martin: It’s no secret that horror as a genre has been booming recently, especially horror work from writers of marginalized communities and identities. What is it about this genre that makes it such a rich space to explore for writers from these communities and these identities? And when you began working in the horror space yourself, in this project and others, what about it made you excited to explore the space? Lastly, when you found your stories, did you find them in conversation with other horror being published, or were you hoping to explore something you hadn’t seen yet? Kosoko: I think, going off my answer above, one additional thing is that there are just so many ways horror can manifest. It can be fun and cinematic, like slashers. It can be folkloric and haunting, it can be a big physical bad with aliens or big monsters, or it can be subtle and haunting. All of these ways means, I think, anyone can be a horror author. I was excited, and still am, about discussing topics that oftentimes can’t be discussed in other genres, or don’t have a good way to wrap them up. Sometimes I don’t want a happy ending, sometimes I want to end in blood and gore and sorrow. Horror allows that. It’s a way of processing things as a human. I read a lot of current horror to see what themes we were discussing and loved how horror, especially now, isn’t just on the page; it is in the subtext. The themes and true message aren’t just “Beat big bad” it’s often “overcome X trauma” or “process X thing” and that’s so cool. Martin: The art in this book between sections is absolutely lovely. Were you involved in the creation and curation of them with the publisher and illustrator? Kosoko: I was a bit! I was asked ‘how do these paintings look’ and to list them and describe them and be able to give feedback on them. It was such a good step and I think it adds such a nice element to the story. It makes it more haunting in my eyes. Martin: In EW, you said, “If I can make a book that makes someone say, “This scared me like Hereditary or Longlegs did,” I’ll die happy.” What about those movies terrified you, and how did you try to channel them in The Macabre? Kosoko: I mean, Hereditary is just such a haunting story of legacy, grief and thrills that I still get chills about it. Longlegs for me hits hard because, mainly, the first third. I also love stories that combine supernatural elements with normal elements, like crime. Those intersectional stories to me are my favorite. I certainly tried to channel them in Macabre, I love spy stories and heists and thrills, so you’ll see some of that blending here. Martin: Finally, a little bonus question: your dedication is to Kat Howard and seems to hint at her novel, An Unkindness of Magicians, being part of The Macabre’s inspiration. Can you tell us a bit about how one informed the other? Kosoko: I’m glad someone picked up on that! An Unkindness of Magicians is my favorite book of all time. It MADE me want to write adult fantasy. The way Kat describes magic usage, legacy, and balances so many characters? It feels so contained and perfect. I reread that book like once a year. It’s a masterclass and I adore Kat.[end-mark] The Macabre is available now from Harper Voyager. The post Art & Legacy in <i>The Macabre</i>: A Conversation With Author Kosoko Jackson appeared first on Reactor.

Excerpts Horror Read an Excerpt From The Burial Tide by Neil Sharpson On an eerily quiet island off the coast of Ireland, a woman with no memory claws her way out of her grave and back to life. By Neil Sharpson | Published on September 9, 2025 Comment 0 Share New Share We’re thrilled to share an excerpt from The Burial Tide by Neil Sharpson, a horror novel drawing on the creatures and horrors of Irish horror—available now from Zando. A woman who can’t remember her death.On an eerily quiet island off the coast of Ireland, a woman with no memory claws her way out of her grave and back to life. But not everyone welcomes the return of Mara Fitch.An island with a terrible secret.Inishbannock. Where strange misshapen figures watch from the trees and the roads are covered in teeth. Where two brothers gamble for nothing, the doctor only treats one patient, and the pub owner speaks in riddles. Where a poet loses and finds his soul. And a man without a heart claims he’s the key to unlocking Mara’s secrets.A past that refuses to stay buried.As Mara returns to her life on this upside-down island, her memories begin to leech their way back to the surface. The more she remembers, the more the village will do anything to stop her…But the sea remembers it all. The day was heavy and overcast. As Mara trudged roughly in the direction of Doctor Quinn’s house, she nested her hands in her fleece pockets to guard against the Atlantic chill. As always, the dead silence of the island quickly became oppressive and she whistled to stave it off. As she walked, she thought about Doctor Quinn’s little memory-card game. Was that really to help me recover my memories? Or was she just molding me into a convenient shape? As if on cue, Doctor Quinn’s house emerged from below the line of hedges. It sat up on a hill, giving the good doctor an excellent vantage point to watch over her patients and to see anyone approaching. While it was a perfectly lovely two-story farmhouse, the kind that you’d see over the logo on a bag of flour, to Mara, it looked implacably sinister, square and black as a cell door against the blank sky. She hunched down low and pulled her hood over her head, keeping close to the dry-stone wall until finally she was out of sight of the doctor’s house. She passed the field still empty of its sheep, but where a great flock of crows, as well as numerous flies, croaked and shuffled over something that lay on the ground, obscured by their shining wings. Something told her not to look at it, to keep moving. Farther along the road: a house skinned to the bone by fire. Most of the structure collapsed. The front wall stood alone with empty windows, like an eyeless mask. Mara stared at the blackened wood and fragments of bubbled, melted glass and could almost hear the crackling of the fire and taste the smoke on her lungs. And yet, she felt cold. She had the sudden, inescapable sensation of walking on a grave. Someone had died here. She was certain of it. Some ghost lingered, screaming silently under its breath. She shuddered, and forced herself to walk on, but was startled to come upon a tiny old woman whose hair was as white as a rabbit’s tail. She wore bright-pink Wellington boots and a purple woolly hat, and as she sat on the wall outside the burnt and gutted house she kicked her legs like a little girl. “Hello, Máire,” she cooed as Mara went past, her shoulders hunched against the cold. Mara stopped, mostly to assure herself the woman was not a ghost, but living flesh and bone. Buy the Book The Burial Tide Neil Sharpson Buy Book The Burial Tide Neil Sharpson Buy this book from: AmazonBarnes and NobleiBooksIndieBoundTarget “Hello,” she said. “Do I know you?” The old woman looked at her in shock. “Know me? Of course you know me. We played handball together last week and you cheated.” Mara smiled sadly. The old woman was clearly “away with the fairies” which was a nice Irish way to say “in the grip of advanced senile dementia.” “I don’t think that was me. But if I did I’m very sorry.” The old woman looked huffy but then relented. “It’s alright. I might have cheated, too.” “What’s your name?” Mara asked. “You know my name, Máire, are you playing a game?” “No,” said Mara shaking her head. “And it’s ‘Mara.’ I had an accident. I can’t remember anything.” “Ah,” said the old woman with a nod, as if they were both on the same blank page. She must have been in her nineties, but there was an elfin childishness to her. “What’s your name?” Mara asked again. The old woman frowned. “What time is it?” “Must be almost eleven,” guessed Mara with a smile. “Then I’m Bridie,” she said. “Does your name change depending on the time?” Mara asked. The woman looked at her with a knowing smile. “Course. All names change with time. Sure you know that, Máire.” “Mara,” she corrected her. “Here,” said Bridie. “Would you like to see the gun?” “What gun?” Mara asked. Bridie pointed over her shoulder to a thick hedge in the garden where a faint dull glint could be seen peeping out from the base. Curious, Mara swung over the wall and went to examine it. Bridie stayed where she was. Mara reached down and, sure enough, found herself holding a large double-barreled shotgun. “It’s because of the sheep,” Bridie called over her shoulder in a sing-song voice. “Someone was shooting sheep?” Mara asked, confused. “Don’t be silly! It’s because the sheep are getting ’et,” Bridie explained with a laugh. “So the farmers came out and they were shooting at them, to scare them off.” “To scare who off?” Mara asked. Bridie looked at her, genuinely confused. “Is it a game, Máire?” she asked. “Yes,” said Mara. “So?” “They were shooting at the Fomor,” Bridie said. “To scare them. But they don’t always scare. The bigger they are, the braver they are.” Fomor. Mara didn’t know the word. But she remembered the sheep screaming and running in terror in the darkness outside Doctor Quinn’s house. She remembered the sound of hands softly padding on the walls. She looked again at the weapon in her hands. She knew next to nothing about guns, but she guessed that if it had been stashed here to be used again, the owner would be disappointed. The weapon was filthy, and there was a dark-red patch that she assumed was rust on the stock. There were also dents here and there. She would have thought the weapon would need to be cleaned and repaired before it could ever be used again. Maybe it had not been stashed here. Maybe it had been disposed of. Maybe no one was meant to find it again. “What time is it?” Bridie asked. Mara clicked her tongue. “Just eleven,” she said. “I have to go,” Bridie said. “My mam will be waiting for me.” The only place her mother could possibly be waiting for her was the hereafter, but Bridie was so small and delicate that it took Mara a moment to realize that there was anything amiss with what the old woman had said. Mara ran back to the wall and watched the retreating figure vanish around the corner. “Bridie!” she called. “Come back!” “That’s not my name…” was all she heard in reply. Excerpted from The Burial Tide, copyright © 2025 by Neil Sharpson. The post Read an Excerpt From <i>The Burial Tide</i> by Neil Sharpson appeared first on Reactor.

World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab has stepped down from its helm following insider claims of financial impropriety. Though cleared of “material wrongdoing,” Schwab ultimately recognized what most have long believed: Davos needs a reboot. The World Economic Forum isn’t seen as a global solutions provider. It is rather seen as a corrupt organization that serves the interests of a privileged elite.  “The people who are gathered at Davos are responsible for the state of the world,” Peter Goodman, New York Times editor and author of “Davos Man: How the Billionaires Devoured the World,” observes. “They could have solved every human problem at the blink of an eye, if they really wanted to.” But solving human problems is impossible when you misdiagnose their source. Davos doesn’t need a reboot. It needs a whole, new operating system.  Valid critiques of Davos begin with its glaring hypocrisies. For decades, the world’s most powerful political, business and civic leaders have flown thousands of fossil-fuel guzzling, private jets to the Albula Alps to feast on grossly overpriced canopies and openly muse about how to help the poor and lower others’ CO2 emissions. Even if their intentions have been good, their tangible impact—much like their humility—has been in short supply. Over those same decades, populism has gone from the fringe to mainstream and trust in global institutions—including Davos itself—has cratered. Several high profile, yet wrong-headed WEF policy prescriptions further contributed to its tarnished image. Schwab’s defining, personal initiative—to replace shareholder capitalism with some multivariate alternative run by an amorphous group of stakeholders—was launched with academic reverence and ultimately rejected with public scorn. WEF also flunked the energy debate, championing massive public investments in renewables that left Europeans paying four times as much as Americans for electricity that was simultaneously less reliable and secure. In April of this year, eight Spaniard and Portuguese citizens died in a solar-power induced blackout that covered most of the Iberian Peninsula for 10 hours. For that Europe can thank, at least in part, Davos Man.  But WEF’s greatest failures aren’t hypocritical behaviors, misguided energy policies or the democratic repudiation of stakeholder capitalism, as bad as these are. Rather, their greatest error is a gross misunderstanding of human nature and what can reasonably be done to ennoble it. WEF’s leaders must reconstitute how they frame the source of human suffering before their proposed solutions could work.  Like all liberal institutions, the World Economic Forum champions individual rights and technocratic solutions without compensating focus on individual responsibilities and humanity’s overriding spiritual needs. WEF cannot generate cures when they misdiagnose the sources of the symptoms they want to treat.  Rights presuppose duties. Any world view that places self-centered striving above communal responsibility betrays the human spirit and undermines the common good. Governments cannot legislate morality any more than the Securities and Exchange Commission can make a “bad” corporation “good.” Goodness and mindfulness emanate from a populace who regularly practice temperance, courage, wisdom and justice.   Law and order are the cornerstones of justice and the guarantors of true freedom. At their best, justice systems reward the law-abiding while protecting the interests of the innocent and least fortunate. Thus, if human beings continue to consume fossil fuels at record levels—which is what we’re doing—it is the moral responsibility of oil and gas producers to provide that fuel legally and at the lowest possible cost. Similarly, legal migration is to be celebrated while illegal migration is condemned. Goodness starts in the human heart, manifests itself in local communities, and aggregates one lost soul at a time. Goodness is not something that is showered down on the commoners from a phalanx of Bombardier Global 7500s making their way to and from the Swiss Alps for fondue.  In all these respects, the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship—a competing convention of political, commercial and civic leaders begun two years ago by Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and social justice advocate Baroness Philippa Stroud—stands in helpful contrast. The alliance has wisely eschewed misplaced criticism of free markets while championing energy abundance. Much more importantly, the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship has squarely addressed the root causes of growing public dissatisfaction: the dissolution of family values, wholesale abandonment of public virtues, and the degradation of spiritual traditions that are essential to all human flourishing.  Unlike Davos, the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship does not try to generate shiny new policy ideas. The virtue-enhancing forces the organization extols long predate the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. These life-affirming forces trace their philosophical roots to Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas. In his book “Politics,” for example, Aristotle argues virtuous, lawful behavior will only define a community when it becomes a habitual norm. All stratums of society—from citizens to soldiers, oligarchs to monarchs, where they exist—must understand and execute their uniquely different stations responsibly, without regard to personal enrichment or entitlement.  In “The City of God,” Augustine states only those who strive for non-earthly pleasures will ever know complete happiness. More recently, in “Moral Man and Immoral Society,” theologian Reinhold Niebuhr argues individuals can and often do attain high degrees of unselfishness and laudable moral behavior through proper reflection and prayer. In contrast, he observes, social groups are ultimately compelled to act out of collective egoism, unlaudable self-interest, and hypocrisy. In every respect, Niebuhr predicted the current failures of Davos 40 years before Schwab convened it.  “My deep conviction is there can be no real political and economic development without some reference to the highest good,” Bishop Robert Barron told the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship earlier this year. “You can’t tell or understand the story of Western civilization without some reference to God.”  If Barron is right, the World Economic Forum needs to do much more than dream up creative ways to fund unsustainable welfare states, coddle gender-fluidity, and diffuse climate catastrophist alarms. Instead, WEF needs to promote nourishment programs for what truly ails the human soul. Content, moral societies are forged by moral men and women, not the other way around.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Can Davos Man Be Redeemed? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

500,000 Men Die in War, Women and Children Most Affected

The French Government Collapses Like a Soufflé Again

After speaking with zero conservative voices about politics last season, ABC’s The View sent a message that they were planning to continue that model on Tuesday’s episode. Their first guest of Season 29 was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was treated to a softball interview filled with gush about her opinions and dissent. At one point, co-host Joy Behar expressed a fear that Americans would soon not be able to read her dissents because cuts to the federal Department of Education would lead to no one being able to read at all. Justice Sotomayor, on the show to hawk her latest children’s book, broached the topic of dissents early and seemed to scoff at the attention that majority opinions got and told viewers to seek out the dissents: How hard each case is. Now, when you read a majority opinion, it sounds totally convincing. It does. Because for you to sign on to a decision, you have to believe what you are signing on to. Read the dissent. Read the other side and it will tell you how hard these questions are. Don't ever think there's a simple answer. There isn't. When former federal prosecutor and co-host Sunny Hostin noted that she was “writing a lot of [dissents] lately,” Sotomayor quipped: “More than I ever hoped.” Hostin proceeded to hype the Justice’s hyperbolic dissent proclamations, gushing about her “very prescient warnings”: HOSTIN: Yes. In Dobbs, you warned overturning Roe v. Wade would create a stench that the Supreme Court decisions are driven by politics and not law. And in your recent dissent, you said the court's recent ruling would allow agents – ICE agents to detain people just for looking Latino or speaking Spanish. Why do you see these decisions as so dangerous to our freedoms? And what do you think ordinary Americans should take away from what seem to be very prescient warnings? SOTOMAYOR: Well, first of all, read the decisions and not just my dissents. But the other side too. Become informed citizens and not just reactive. Because people will say things that are simply not there or say things and misconstrue them. Read them yourself. Educate yourself as Americans.     Moderator Whoopi Goldberg, perhaps simply seeking an answer to her own ignorance, asked Sotomayor to explain “to regular folks” where her dissents could be found (Click “expand”): SOTOMAYOR: Read my dissent. GOLDBERG: Where can people find these dissents? Cause I think people always think they’re not available to regular folks. Is there a place to -- SOTOMAYOR: Online. GOLDBERG: Online. SOTOMAYOR: And you search online the way you search anything. “The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday.” You can start there. All right? “Sotomayor dissent yesterday.” “Noem,” that’s one of the names in the case. “The Noem Supreme Court decision.” Search bar, it will pop right up. The Supreme Court website, supremecourt.gov has all our decisions immediately when they’re issued. It was then that Behar, dressed like the Justice's twin, interjected with her bizarre and erroneous fear that Americans were on track to be broadly illiterate. “But they keep de-funding the Department of Education. How are we going to read the dissents?” she asked to the silence of the table. Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin immediately stepped in with her own baseless fear: FARAH GRIFFIN: There has been talk that Donald Trump might seek a third term in office. It's my personal belief that if he did the Republican Party would likely support him. I want to ask you; obviously, the 22nd Amendment prohibits somebody from seeking a third term in office. Do you believe the 22nd Amendment is settled law? SOTOMAYOR: The Constitution is settled law. No one has tried to challenge that. Until somebody tries, you don't know. So, it's not settled, because we don't have a court case about that issue. But it is in the Constitution. And one should understand that there's nothing that is the greater law in the United States than the Constitution of the United States. The View’s ridiculously gushy interview was kicked off by pretend independent Sara Haines winding up this softball about Perry Mason being Sotomayor’s inspiration to go to law school (Click “expand”): HAINES: And I heard that watching episodes of Perry Mason influenced your decision to become a lawyer. Is that true? SOTOMAYOR: It's absolutely true. Perry Mason and Nancy drew. HAINES: I love Nancy Drew! HOSTIN: Yes! Nancy Drew! SOTOMAYOR: And Nancy Drew. There's enough people of my age in the audience to remember Nancy Drew. [Applause] BEHAR: She was a detective. SOTOMAYOR: Amateur detective. And she got me interested in law and thinking about it. And then Perry Mason sealed the deal. Sotomayor’s conservative colleague, Justice Amy Coney Barrett also had a new book out (a memoir) but was not lined up to be a guest on The View, according to their tickets request page. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View September 9, 2025 11:25:37 a.m. Eastern (…) SARA HAINES: Welcome to the show. JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR (U.S. Supreme Court): Thank you. HAINES: You are starting your 17th year as a justice on the Supreme Court. [Applause] And I heard that watching episodes of Perry Mason influenced your decision to become a lawyer. Is that true? SOTOMAYOR: It's absolutely true. Perry Mason and Nancy drew. HAINES: I love Nancy Drew! SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes! Nancy Drew! SOTOMAYOR: And Nancy Drew. There's enough people of my age in the audience to remember Nancy Drew. [Applause] JOY BEHAR: She was a detective. SOTOMAYOR: Amateur detective. And she got me interested in law and thinking about it. And then Perry Mason sealed the deal. [Laughter] HAINES: You spend your days weighing in on the biggest issues of our time. From immigration to guns, education, and even the limits of executive power. Now, I know you can't talk about the specifics. But knowing the weight a Supreme Court decision holds, what has surprised you the most about the court? SOTOMAYOR: How hard each case is. Now, when you read a majority opinion, it sounds totally convincing. It does. Because for you to sign on to a decision, you have to believe what you are signing on to. Read the dissent. Read the other side and it will tell you how hard these questions are. Don't ever think there's a simple answer. There isn't. First of all, the cases come to the Supreme Court only because judges across the country have disagreed. What we call a circuit split. Reasonable people of all backgrounds have disagreed. And then we get the case. So, there's no easy answer. BEHAR: It's always been like that, right? SOTOMAYOR: Always been like that. BEHAR: It's nothing new. SOTOMAYOR: No, no. It’s nothing new. Maybe the outcomes are new sometimes, but not the process. The process is hard. And the other thing is, there's no winning in court. There's one side wins, another side -- what's the opposite of win? Loses. And the person who loses is losing something they thought it was important. A right they had, a claim they thought justified. It is something that's costing them. This is always a price we pay in court cases. So, that – Yes, that's surprised me. HAINES: That’s a very thoughtful answer. Thank you. SOTOMAYOR: No, no. I thought when I was on the lower courts that it was easy, cause somebody was above me to correct our mistakes, my mistakes. Not now. BEHAR: The buck stops with you. SOTOMAYOR: The buck stops with us. HOSTIN: Well, Justice Sotomayor, speaking of dissents, which you seem to be writing a lot of lately -- SOTOMAYOR: More than I ever hoped. HOSTIN: Yes. In Dobbs, you warned overturning Roe v. Wade would create a stench that the Supreme Court decisions are driven by politics and not law. And in your recent dissent, you said the court's recent ruling would allow agents – ICE agents to detain people just for looking Latino or speaking Spanish. Why do you see these decisions as so dangerous to our freedoms? And what do you think ordinary Americans should take away from what seem to be very prescient warnings? SOTOMAYOR: Well, first of all, read the decisions and not just my dissents. But the other side too. Become informed citizens and not just reactive. Because people will say things that are simply not there or say things and misconstrue them. Read them yourself. Educate yourself as Americans. The price we pay is whatever is happening today as I indicated is going to affect a lot of people. But it affects your future. And it affects the conduct of leaders in the future, because what we permit today is not going to be duplicated exactly tomorrow. It's going to be something different. It will be a different group of people. It will be a different situation. But once we have approved it, it sets a precedent that can be, in your judgment – cause in the end, you are the people affected. Right? Really bad. And that's what's at risk is in each time we change precedent, we are changing the contours of a right that people thought they had. And once you take that away, think of how much more is at risk later. Not just in this situation. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: And we know you can't comment on legal cases pending. As Sunny said, you know, the ruling yesterday about ICE raids, I’m just curious, how are they going to know who is who? SOTOMAYOR: Read my dissent. GOLDBERG: Where can people find these dissents? Cause I think people always think they’re not available to regular folks. Is there a place to -- SOTOMAYOR: Online. GOLDBERG: Online. SOTOMAYOR: And you search online the way you search anything. “The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday.” You can start there. All right? “Sotomayor dissent yesterday.” “Noem,” that’s one of the names in the case. “The Noem Supreme Court decision.” Search bar, it will pop right up. The Supreme Court website, supremecourt.gov has all our decisions immediately when they’re issued. So, you don’t even have to wait for the - BEHAR: But they keep de-funding the Department of Education. How are we going to read the dissents? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Justice, I do want to get in because we’re short on time. There has been talk that Donald Trump might seek a third term in office. It's my personal belief that if he did the Republican Party would likely support him. I want to ask you; obviously, the 22nd Amendment prohibits somebody from seeking a third term in office. Do you believe the 22nd Amendment is settled law? SOTOMAYOR: The Constitution is settled law. No one has tried to challenge that. Until somebody tries, you don't know. So, it's not settled, because we don't have a court case about that issue. But it is in the Constitution. And one should understand that there's nothing that is the greater law in the United States than the Constitution of the United States. (…)