E Pluribus Unum: The Supreme Court Issues Two Major Rulings With Only One Dissenting Vote

We have previously discussed the disconnect between the rhetoric for court packing and the reality of the court itself. As senators like Elizabeth Warren have called to pack the Court with a liberal majority and others have described it as hopelessly and ideologically divided, the Court itself continues to crank out unanimous or nearly unanimous decisions. This week saw two major cases touching on free exercise and free speech with only one dissenting vote.  While justices have publicly condemned the Democratic court packing efforts, the court seems to be again speaking through its opinions. The cases are Ramirez v. Collier and  Houston Community College System v. David Buren Wilson.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 this week in favor of death row inmate John Henry Ramirez, who challenged a rule barring his pastor from audibly praying and physically touching him while he is being executed. Despite a 2019 policy of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the Court ruled that Baptist Pastor Dana Moore must be allowed to audibly pray over Ramirez and “lay hands upon him at the time of his death.”

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that Ramirez “is likely to succeed in proving that his religious requests are ‘sincerely based on a religious belief’” as required by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc.  Roberts cited the “rich history of clerical prayer at the time of a prisoner’s execution, dating back well before the founding of our Nation.” 

The most interesting portion of the majority and concurring opinions came from Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the strict scrutiny standard (and is incorporated into the RLUIPA):

[T]he Court’s holding implicates significant issues about how the Court decides whether a State’s asserted interest is sufficiently “compelling” and how the Court assesses whether less restrictive means could satisfy that compelling interest. This case illustrates both the difficulty of those inquiries and the important role that history and state practice often play in the analysis.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a 23-page dissent that portrayed the challenge as a transparent effort to delay the execution: “Unsurprisingly, death-row inmates generally employ any means available to stave off their sentences and therefore often engage in abusive litigation.” He added:

All told, Ramirez’s 11th-hour gambit in January 2017 bought him more than three years of delay. In the end, none of Ramirez’s federal habeas claims merited even a single certificate of appealability, let alone relief. Yet, through ceaseless litigation, strategic delay, and a “[l]ast-minute” blitz on the District Court, Ramirez parlayed his federal habeas petition into a 7-year deferral of his lawfully imposed sentence. We should interpret Ramirez’s actions in the instant litigation in light of that history, recognize that his shifting in-chambers-touching claim is just another chapter in that history, and reject his most recent attempt to delay his execution.

The second case produced an unanimous ruling in  Houston Community College System v. David Buren Wilson.  That case involved a claim from an elected official who claimed that his formal censure by other members of the HCC Board of Trustees was a violation of the First Amendment.

David Wilson has been a member of the HCC Board of Trustees since he was first elected to the position in 2013 and has filed repeated lawsuits against the board.

Writing for the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, noted that Wilson had been disruptive and confrontational throughout his tenure. That led to a public censure resolution for conduct that was “not consistent with the best interests of the College” and “not only inappropriate, but reprehensible.” It also imposed some penalties like cutting off access to certain board funds.

While the district court ruled against Wilson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and found a violation of the First Amendment.

In his opinion, Gorsuch traced the use of censure from colonial times and noted that “elected bodies in this country have long exercised the power to censure their members. In fact, no one before us has cited any evidence suggesting that a purely verbal censure analogous to Mr. Wilson’s has ever been widely considered offensive to the First Amendment.”

He added:

“[T]he only adverse action at issue before us is itself a form of speech from Mr. Wilson’s colleagues that concerns the conduct of public office. The First Amendment surely promises an elected representative like Mr. Wilson the right to speak freely on questions of government policy. But just as surely, it cannot be used as a weapon to silence other representatives seeking to do the same.”

Gorsuch seemed to leave the door open to future, more substantive claims under the First Amendment: “‘deprivations less harsh than dismissal’ can sometimes qualify too. At the same time, no one would think that a mere frown from a supervisor constitutes a sufficiently adverse action to give rise to an actionable First Amendment claim.”

Gorsuch concluded:

Our case is a narrow one. It involves a censure of one member of an elected body by other members of the same body. It does not involve expulsion, exclusion, or any other form of punishment. It entails only a First Amendment retaliation claim, not any other claim or any other source of law. The Board’s censure spoke to the conduct of official business, and it was issued by individuals seeking to discharge their public duties. Even the censured member concedes the content of the censure would not have offended the First Amendment if it had been packaged differently. Neither the history placed before us nor this Court’s precedents support finding a viable First Amendment claim on these facts. Argument and “counterargument,” not litigation, are the “weapons available” for resolving this dispute. Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375, 389 (1962).

The results in these two cases were not surprises. Indeed, my two Supreme Court classes considered both cases and not only decided them the same way but predicted these outcomes.

What is notable is that, again, the Court seems to be speaking loudly through its own decisions. Law Deans like Erwin Chemerinksy have called the justice “partisan hacks” while Democratic senators have issued public threats to the justices to vote in line with their own views. Justice Stephen Breyer and other colleagues have swatted back such claims that this is a “conservative court” driven by ideology. This week’s decisions further support that position.

62 thoughts on “E Pluribus Unum: The Supreme Court Issues Two Major Rulings With Only One Dissenting Vote”

  1. Everyone is missing the reason why JT wrote this article. It was to tell that sometimes the Supreme Court works together, but not often. I’m an ultra Magazine individual who has respect for JT, he is old school liberal, with a lot of good common sense.

  2. I very much like Turley and this blog. I disagree with the assertion he has made here; that the two decisions cited, because they are unanimous and near-unanimous, indicate that the court can operate in a judicial manner, free of partisanship. However, these cases do not provide a test of this assertion because they do not entail issues of political policy interests. In cases where such interests arise, as in cases involving abortion or affirmative action, Democratic appointees will always decide in favor of Democratic policy interests. There are virtually no exceptions. Republican appointee decisions vary because they will be guided by their understanding of how Constitutional principles apply to the case. Because some cases present Constitutional gray areas, thoughtful jurists who are so guided (i.e., Republican appointees) may disagree, There will therefore be variation in decision making amongst the Republican appointees.

  3. In a DM fail, Maryland Republican Kathy Szeliga objected to the response from Maryland Democrats Adrienne Jones and Bill Ferg by calling them “b**ches”: https://twitter.com/emilyopilo/status/1507721025898885120?s=21
    Szeliga apologized, but my guess is that she’s only sorry for hitting the wrong reply button and saying it publicly, not sorry for calling them “b**ches,” which presumably is how she thinks of them.

  4. “E Pluribus Unum:…”

    – Professor Turley

    “One From Many”

    “One” pays all, while “Many” pay nothing and live on the labor and fruits of others, as prescribed by Karl Marx.

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

    – Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto

    “Study: 57 percent of US households paid no federal income tax last year”

    – The Hill

    The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America have overturned the motto, e pluribus unum, by allowing mendicants, freeloaders and goldbricks to sit idle and benefit from the toil and endeavor of others.

    The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have unconstitutionally reconfigured the IRS tax code into a charity and welfare program which provides welfare and “free stuff” by omission.

    Congress cannot tax for individual welfare, specific welfare or charity which are precluded by the Article 1, Section 8, requirement that taxation be ONLY for “…general Welfare.”

    Americans cannot be taxed to pay for massive charity, entitlement and benefit programs for others, especially for those others who pay no taxes.

    The problem is the judicial branch which is negligent, derelict and biased in their failure to support the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance.

    Justices of the Supreme Court are high-criminal in their failure to execute their sworn duty to support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution which does not allow taxation for charity, individual welfare or specific welfare.

  5. More Turley hyperbole: neither of these cases constitutes a “major ruling”. A death-row inmate wants his pastor to allowed to audibly pray with him and hold his hand while he is put to death, but Texas (of course) had a law or policy forbidding this, so it was reversed. How is that a “major” ruling? How many Americans does it actually affect? Then you have some loud troublemaker who claimed his formal censure was a violation of his First Amendment rights. Another yawner, and not a “major ruling” affecting a large number of Americans. The real “major” rulings are the ones in which the partisanship of the Trump appointed judges will shine forth and they are still to come: affirmative action in college admissions and abortion rights, both of which stand to be reversed thanks to the appointees of the election cheater. Today’s piece checks another box on Turley’s assignment list: defend Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett and attack those who want to enlarge the SCOTUS to achieve more balance by pretending that near unanimous rulings of Trump’s nominees prove they aren’t partisan hacks. It isn’t working, Turley.

    1. As you noted JT did his assignment on minor cases that were easy and he ignores the partisan hacks put on the bench by trump and other GOP hacks – he can now get TV time to claim the court is not a bunch of conservative hacks – yes the court is packed with corporate hacks – just look at the rulings – and to cite the great Beer Bong – more insult to good lawyers everywhere

  6. Lizzie Borden WARREN TOOK AN AXE
    Gave her home state fourty whacks
    When they saw whAT SHE HAD DONE
    Gave her country Fourty One


    Known A Poke And Haunt US she continues her PRO SOCIALIST FASCIST CAREER

    OF PRETENDING TO BE A CITIZEN OF THE USA and continuing to lie

    She personifies the current ADMINISTRATION.

  7. Court Packing wAS ONE OF Lincoln’s judicial failures when the Supreme Court of his years denied it stating something to the line of it destroys the whole purpose of the Court to act as the major check against a take over by any one group. In todays words it should be used to stop things like socialist fascism.

    1. “One of Lincoln’s judicial failures” was the failure of the Supreme Court to admonish Congress to impeach Lincoln for Lincoln’s crimes of high office as denying the constitutional right to and freedom of secession, prosecution of an unconstitutional war of aggression (not common defense) against a sovereign foreign nation, imposition of unconstitutional martial law, unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, unconstitutional denial of freedom of the press and smashing printing presses, unconstitutional denial of freedom of speech and throwing political opponents in prison, confiscation of legal private property, failure to enforce immigration law and deport illegal aliens, etc.

      Lincoln should have been impeached for embracing communism as demonstrated by the letter of commendation and congratulation from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln.


      “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”

      – Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837

      “Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”

      – Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848

      “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

      – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

      “The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”

      – Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864



  8. Recall another case where Clarence Thomas was the only dissent: the 8-1 decision to allow the release of Trump’s 1/6 documents to the Jan. 6 Select Committee.

    Now, texts show his wife telling Trump’s CoS, Mark Meadows, that Trump should take “unrelenting efforts” after the election to block Biden from taking office. Clarence Thomas should have recused. Meanwhile, we still don’t know if he’s still in the hospital and whether he’s recovering or getting worse.

    Robert Costa: “Woodward and I both see this as an unprecedented entanglement between a top official in the Exec Branch and the spouse of a Justice. They [Ginni Thomas and Meadows] are privately discussing strategy, lawyers, managing WH staff, and conspiracy theories.”

      1. Would be wonderful to have DeSantis as a US President, SCOTUS Justice and more.
        For now we have a woman who does not know what a woman is but does belong to her Plantation owners, the DNC

    1. In an echo of the party’s racist past, prominent Democrats are demanding the Supreme Court’s lone black justice, Clarence Thomas, be fired from his job. The racially charged attacks are made all the more sinister by the fact that Thomas is married to a white woman, Virginia, who has also come under assault as a result of their interracial love.

      “Clarence Thomas needs to be impeached,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) wrote Thursday in response to revelations about the justice’s white wife. In an op-ed titled, “Why Democrats should impeach Justice Clarence Thomas,” MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan cited Thomas’s relationship with his wife as one of the main reasons why the black man should lose his job. The Women’s March, a Democratic-aligned activist group plagued by allegations of anti-Semitism, also called for Thomas to be impeached. The group’s executive director, Rachel O’Leary Carmona, said Thomas was “hopelessly compromised” as a result of his interracial marriage.

      Of course, Democrats would argue the substance of their attack on the interracial couple—something about text messages—is a relevant factor in determining whether or not they are being racist. This is blatantly false. Some might even call it gaslighting


      1. Continuing as above…..

        “Given the party’s ugly history of supporting slavery and Jim Crow laws, these Democratic demands for Thomas’s impeachment are tantamount to committing physical violence against the 73-year-old justice. By suggesting Thomas should be fired over his relationship with a white woman, Democrats are demanding a return to the institutionalized racial segregation the esteemed justice was forced to overcome as a child growing up in Georgia in the 1950s.

        It is not the first time Democrats have physically assaulted (with their words) a prominent black figure. The Washington Post, a Democratic-aligned publication owned by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, ran an extensive “investigation” into the family history of Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.), the first black senator to represent a Southern state since Reconstruction. Based on information provided by so-called historians who happened to be Democratic donors, the Post implied that Scott’s black grandfather, who grew up in South Carolina during the Great Depression, might have benefited from white privilege or something.

        Democrats and their allies lashed out at Scott in a racially charged tornado of outrage after the senator gave the GOP response to President Joe Biden’s congressional address in April 2021. Democratic analyst Jason Nichols called Scott a “clown” whose “ancestors are ashamed of him.” At least one left-wing pundit was forced to apologize after using the racist “Uncle Tom” trope to describe Scott’s speech.

        The Democratic Party has a long history of disrespecting black and brown bodies, especially in the context of the Supreme Court. In 2003, for example, Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) and his fellow Democrats violently filibustered Miguel Estrada’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals because liberal activists had expressed concern that Estrada was “especially dangerous” because “he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” Talking points prepared for the late senator and sexual predator Ted Kennedy included a line about how Democrats must oppose Estrada’s historic nomination because “we can’t repeat the mistake we made with Clarence Thomas.”


    1. Lin, the revelation that the wife of a Supreme Court justice had an active engagement with the WH chief of staff over the false allegations of voter fraud is grounds for justice Thomas to recuse himself from deciding on a case that involves communications sought by the Jan 6 committee. He dissented. It doesn’t take much imagination to assume his wife talked to him about it prior to him being on the case.

      Turley claims judge Jackson should recuse herself from the Harvard case because she was on the board of governors. Ginny Thomas was involved in the events surrounding the case he was presiding over. He should have recused himself and should recuse himself from further cases involving the Jan 6. Committee. The appearance of a conflict of interest is pretty obvious.

      1. Svelaz: -And you are to believe that the spouses of the other justices never talk to them about controversial topics, but the [anti-conservative] mainstream MEDIA do/does not investigate/mention/or even care about that? You are incredibly naIve…

        1. lin,

          The case (Trump v Thompson) involved written records, and those written records included emails between Ginni Thomas and Trump’s CoS, Mark Meadows. Don’t pretend that Svelaz’s comment was about Ginni Thomas’s private conversations with her husband.

          1. Amusing that whenever I make a comment to “Svelaz,” the response is from “Anonymous.” In any event, I stand by my comment. Whether by direct email or indirect private communication, the indiscretions run deep on both sides, and you are naive to believe otherwise. Moreover, you fail to establish even a scintilla of nexus between ? and ?…even your left-wing Nina Totenberg (NPR) admitted today that no wrong was committed. Notwithstanding, I would suggest that Justice Thomas recuse himself from future decisions involving January 6–only for the purpose of resisting “perceptions.”

              1. Respectfully, perhaps YOU need to reacquaint yourself with what Totenberg said. I DO recall her opining-when questioned near the end of her interview-, that Thomas should recuse himself from any future cases involving January 6, which I somewhat agree with, –as said–only to avoid uncomfortable “perceptions.” He has NO duty to recuse himself, which Totenberg also admitted. Notwithstanding, her equivocal communications created a field day for the media.
                I also suggest that YOU are in denial of the facts. Indeed, I challenge you to establish (1) a nexus between her communications and any action or consequences resulting therefrom, and (2) any legal wrong that she committed. I promise to apologize on this post if she is found to have done something legally wrong.

                1. I didn’t claim that Ginni Thomas had done something legally wrong, and I have no burden to demonstrate things I never claimed. The issue I commented on is whether Justice Thomas should have recused in Trump v Thompson due to his wife’s post-election communications with at least one person in the Trump Admin whose post-election communications are part of the suit — the nexus between Thomas and the subject of the suit.

                  You asserted that Totenberg “admitted today that no wrong was committed,” and she did not say that. You now say “He has NO duty to recuse himself, which Totenberg also admitted,” and Totenberg didn’t say that either.

                  1. (smile) if you are a lawyer (I doubt it), you know that admissions may be direct or implied. Totenberg did NOT deny that Ginni Thomas committed no legal wrong. And you also are wrong: Totenberg expressly explained that Thomas has no duty to recuse himself. Enough of this nonsense. I’ll let you get the last word in. Good night.

                  2. P.S. THIS is what your original accusatory comment was (@ 12:57), and what I was responding to: “It doesn’t take much imagination to assume his wife talked to him about it prior to him being on the case.”
                    You frequently attempt to save face by introducing some collateral matter.

                    1. P.S.S. I apologize for addendum to above comment, but I should have reminded you that your original comment expressed a belief that wife’s communications constituted “grounds” for recusal. You also falsely noted that Thomas “dissented.” FIrst, he “dissented” only to the Court HEARING the matter, which you should have clarified. Second, wife’s communications do NOT constitute “grounds” for recusal, although argument could be made for opinion. Go ahead and close out for the night.

                    2. Svelaz wrote the 12:57pm comment, not me. You have trouble with details. Just as you did with Totenberg’s statements and reference to Gillers’ statement about recusal.

      2. ‘It doesn’t take much imagination to assume his wife talked to him about it prior to him being on the case.’ Ok, now I get it, we don’t need proof anymore, jut imagination. Thanks for the clarification.

  9. I agree with RZ’s request: Professor Turley – please do a piece on the Trump vs. Clinton et. al. lawsuit.
    Can you imagine if John Durham is subpoenaed to testify, producing his findings supporting Trump’s lawsuit?

      1. It’s a nothing-burger that Trump could finally be questioned under oath about the allegations in his suit, by his own doing? I’d love to see that.

        1. Yeah I’d love to see that too, but it won’t happen. Just like the 2008 financial disaster no one will be held accountable. There is no system or process in the US to hold rich people accountable. For anything. Best not to worry about it. I’m not saying any of that is good or morally right- quite the opposite. it’s just the truth.

          1. The difference is: Trump is the one bringing this civil suit. It may well be that the defendants ask a judge to dismiss it, but if they don’t, or if their motion fails, then Trump and the defendants and others will be called to testify under oath about this, and because it’s a civil suit, if any of them plead the 5th, a jury can consider that as evidence against the person doing it. I doubt that Trump would be able to testify without lying, so he might then be charged with perjury.

            1. Yeah I get what you’re saying I just feel like I’ve seen this before. First it was gonna be the New York case that was gonna take him down, then it was the Jan 6 committee and I think there are some people who think Garland is working on something but none of that’s anything. Trump has said one truthful thing in his life and that was that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and not get charged with anything. And even if he was charged he’d never be convicted. And even if he somehow is convicted there’s no chance he ever serves anything like time. Maybe he has to pay a fine but I’d be shocked if even that happens. And if it does the next R president just pardons him and that’s the end of that. Trump walks- for everything. Best not to worry about it.

            2. “I doubt that Trump would be able to testify without lying”

              Such suits have limited discovery. Since you are acting ‘wise’, what pertinent question would cause Trump to lie?

              Additionally, such suits take time. Is Hillary going to run for President in 2024? I think Trump intends to. Such a suit might drown Hillary. I think even some Democrats would enjoy the takedown.

    1. I wonder whether the defendants in that suit will try to get the case dismissed or will instead look forward to it being a situation where they can depose Trump and make a case to a jury. It would be great for him to have to answer questions about this under oath.

      For anyone who’s interested, here’s the suit: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21510267-22048212-0-70029
      It has quite the list of defendants.

    2. If Turley did a piece that relied on facts, here’s what would come of it: (from the Washington Post)

      Stopped reading when I saw Wash Post.

      You really are nucken futs.


          Said troll uses many sock puppet names including Fish Wings, Dennis McIntyre, Natacha, Justice Holmes and so many more

        2. Oh, is that the reason some recent replies by Sevvy demonstrated human intelligence?

    3. Natacha, it’s copyright infrlngement to quote that much copyrighted material, and there’s a good chance that Turley/Darren will delete it. Next time, choose a couple of excerpts and just link to the full article.

      1. I disagree that it’s any copyright infringement, but it’s important for the disciples to see the entirety of the piece. They already believe that Durham is going to come up with the goods on Hillary Clinton, and that the Trump lawsuit against her is going to go somewhere. Neither thing is going to happen, but it keeps the fat one’s name out there, along with attacks against Democrats that are lies. When the Trump lawsuit gets dismissed, the reason will be the “deep state”, not the utter absurdity of it and falsity of claims. The ties between Trump, his campaign and Russia are well-developed, and HIllary Clinton did nothing wrong. She’s already been investigated and cleared.

        1. It’s copyrighted material, and you quoted it in excess of fair use. That’s copyright infringement whether or not you believe it. They can read it in full on the Post’s website.

  10. “barring his pastor from audibly praying and physically touching him while he is being executed.”

    Texas should have noted to the pastor “we’re utilizing the electric chair, are you sure you want to lay hands on him”?

  11. Curious as to how Breyer’s replacement would have voted on these two? Would she have dissented in Ramirez (albeit for reason different that Justice Thomas)? I would think so. Also, probably joined with the majority in Wilson.

  12. Professor Turley sure causes our resident Lefties great consternation when he injects facts into arguments.

    When those facts are published for public consumption such as happens on FOXNEWS….our resident Lefties really get miffed.

    That the facts indict and challenge the political rants of the Loud Mouths of the Leftist movement like Warren and others really puts a stick in their spokes.

    That Professor Turley calls it right well in advance of the Court’s Decisions must be really irksome to the Left.

    Also, knowing that it is only FOXNEWS that is making his forecasts and analysis available to the Public while ALL of the other media outlets remain purveyors of the Left’s agenda and propaganda surely shows the service FOXNEWS does re informing the People, a role that the Founding Fathers thought so important for the Press/Media to do reinforces the importance of the Media in informing public opinion.

    Far better it be well informed by facts and reason rather than emotion and propaganda based upon lies.

    1. Turley publishes on USAtoday and The Hill before Fox News quite often.

  13. Why no mention of Thomas’s unethical sole dissent in the Jan 6 records case?

      1. Not recusing yourself on a case where your wife’s text messages are being subpoenaed would be corrupt in the extreme even if the texts weren’t to do with a scheme or overthrow a duly elected US government. Nothing will come of it of course but it’s another data point in SCOTUSs unrelenting slide into irrelevance and illegitimacy. Hence the rather pitiful attempt at damage control by our host. This is what comes of allowing religious weirdos too much access to government, whether it’s Opus Dei or the snake handlers.

      2. Because his wife was an active participant in the communications he alone voted to protect. Are you really this dense?

        1. Its not like she got millions of dollars in Ukraine in petroleum consultations while not having established skillsets in said industry, nor was she caught smoking crack on numerous videos saved on a laptop…. But you digress

          Wut wer u sayin’ bruh? Stop hittin da pipe

  14. Would like to read Turley’s view on a likely U.S. Supreme Court case “Weir v. United States” – where innocent fisherman were treated inhumanely in violation of the 8th Amendment, imprisoned for a year and had their livelihood destroyed. Turns out the federal officials never had the authority in the first place.

    1. Mrs. Jackson is a well-off member of the uPPer class. She will not betray her fellow members. She might well vote the way any enlightened justice would…in decisions that won’t upset anyone except those seeking to score political points e.g. Josh Hawley. Otherwise, any progress society makes, and it will – will come slowly, by degrees.

Comments are closed.