Below is my column in the New York Post on the controversial dissenting opinion of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the injunction ruling in Trump v. CASA on Friday. The opinion seemed to fan the flames of “democracy is dying” claims of protesters, suggesting that basic limits on injunctive relief could result in the collapse of our core institutions. It was a hyperventilated opinion better suited to a cable program than a Court opinion. The response from Justice Amy Coney Barrett was a virtual pile driver of a rebuke. What was notable is that a majority of the justices signed off on the takedown. It could indicate a certain exasperation with histrionics coming from the left of the Court in recent years.
Here is the column:
For most citizens, the release of Supreme Court opinions is about as exciting as watching paint dry, particularly in a case dealing with the limits of district courts in issuing universal injunctions.
Yet Friday’s Trump v. CASA case included a virtual slugfest between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The decision was one of the biggest of the term. The Court moved to free the Administration from an onslaught of orders from district judges seeking to block the President in areas ranging from the downsizing of government to immigration.
However, it was the departure of the normally staid court analysis that attracted the most attention.
The tenor of Jackson’s language shocked not just many court watchers, but her colleagues. It seemed ripped from the signs carried just a couple of weeks earlier in the “No Kings” protests.
The Court often deals with issues that deeply divide the nation. Yet it tends to calm the waters by engaging in measured, reasoned analysis — showing the nation that these are matters upon which people can have good-faith disagreements.
But that culture of civility and mutual respect has been under attack in recent years.
Not long ago, the Court was rocked by the leaking of the draft of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. That was followed by furious protests against conservative justices at their homes and an attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
There was also a change in the tenor of the exchanges in oral argument and opinions between the justices.
Recently, during the argument over the use of national injunctions in May, Chief Justice John Roberts was clearly fed up with Justice Sotomayor interrupting government counsel with pointed questions and commentary, finally asking Sotomayor, “Will you please let us hear his answer?”
This hyperbole seemed to border on hysteria in the Jackson dissent. The most junior justice effectively accused her colleagues of being toadies for tyranny.
It proved too much for the majority, which pushed back on the overwrought rhetoric.
While the language may seem understated in comparison to what we regularly hear in Congress, it was the equivalent of a virtual cage match for the Court.
Some of us have argued that our system is working just as designed, particularly as these issues work through the courts. The courts have ruled for and against this Administration as they struggle with the difficult lines of authority between the branches.
Liberals who claim “democracy is dying” seem to view democracy as getting what you want when you want it.
It was, therefore, distressing to see Jackson picking up on the “No Kings” theme, warning about drifting toward “a rule-of-kings governing system”
She said that limiting the power of individual judges to freeze the entire federal government was “enabling our collective demise. At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”
The “minutiae” dismissed by Jackson happen to be the statutory and constitutional authority of federal courts. It is the minutiae that distinguish the rule of law from mere judicial impulse.
Justice Barrett clearly had had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.”
She added, “We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
In other words, the danger to democracy is found in judges acting like kings. Barrett explained to her three liberal colleagues that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
The last term has laid bare some of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a certain exasperation with having to closely follow the text of laws. (In an earlier dissent this term, Jackson lashed out against the limits of textualism and argued for courts to free themselves from the confines — or shall we say the “minutiae” — of statutory language). In this opinion, Barrett slams Jackson for pursuing other diversions “because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese.'” Again, what Jackson refers to as “legalese” is the heart of the judicial function in constraining courts under Article III.
Untethered by statutory or constitutional text, it allows the courts to float free from the limits of the Constitution.
For many, that is not an escape into minutiae but madness without clear lines for judicial power.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right.”
N.B.:this column is slightly longer than the one that appeared in the NY Post.
In a hurry here, but just wanted to add something. Skimming through the comments, one person (was it George?) lamented that Justice Jackson represented the only one who had experience as a defense lawyer.
As though that somehow reflected [what????]
I believe Sonia Sotomayor (the second most “radical” Liberal on the bench, IMO) was actually a federal PROSECUTOR in NY, so there you have that…
Not sure what that commenter was trying to prove? Also, Thurgood Marshall (on the bench for a long time, some 20+ years?) was also a public defender I believe.
Basing this on my memory, which could be in error. Don’t have time to research this, so I am open to correction. thanks
It’s not relevant. George is just demonstrating, once again, that’s he’s an idiot.
that was the point. See, ^^^^ “As though that somehow reflected [what????]”
Justice Jackson represented the only one who had experience as a defense lawyer.
So she is a hyper defensive twat. Who knew!
Lin,
Jackson maybe a defense lawyer, but she also is not, clearly, a Constitutional lawyer.
She is also not a biologist and cannot define what a woman is.
I have not read Jackson’s dissent or the opinion – they are very long, and the media is glossing over lots of important details.
HOWEVER the conflict between Barrett and Jackson is important and BOTH have important points.
Congress and the courts HAVE given the federal government generally and the president specifically more power than the founders and the constitution immagined or than the president should have.
HOWEVER, contra the left – it is NOT Trump that is the threat to democracy (we are a republic, not a democracy).
Nearly all of Trump’s actions that the left is trying to Thwart are efforts to REDUCE the power of the federal govenrment.
To RIF significant portions of the federal workforce, to reduce federal spending – these are NOT threats to democracy or threats to the constitution, or existential threats to anything except an unconstitutional class of elites that has been ruling the country for a century.
In MOST of his actions Trump is the OPPOSITE of Tyranny.
Barrett is corrrect in asserting that the threat to the nation posed in these lawsuits comes from the Judges – not the president. We have seen the rule of judges in inumerable banana republics – more recently Brazil – where individual judges on the Brazillian supreme court have become defacto kings. The threat to the rule of law posed by judges is enormous. Which is why in our system judges have NO POLICY power at all.
The courts DO NOT get to decide if what legislagtors or executives seek to do is wise, or a good idea, or politicaly acceptable, or even if it will work. The scope of their decisions is limited to the constitutional jurisdiction they have, to whether the actions they are judging are constitutional, and whether they are lawful.
That and that alone is the domain of the courts. Outside that domain there be danger.
Conversely Jackson is correct that congress has delegated to the president more power than the constitution allows, and more power than it is wise for congress to have given. The FORMER is something the courts have jurisdiction over – the latter is not. A century ago the courts should have reigined in congress delegating constitutionally legislative powers to the president – they did not, and undoing that is nearly impossible. Recently the court reigned in the unconstitutional chevron deference, but doing so is merely returning to an older problem – SCOTUS transfered power from the executive to the courts, but the actual power in question resides with Congress – not the president, not the courts.
With few execptions Trump is NOT an example of an imperial president – pretty much all democrats for the past century and most republicans ARE.
Justice Jackson is simply a Communist, and that is fact. Her ilk are very dangerous to the Supreme Court.
This is nice, but the existential question involves deportation law. We have to have a means to reverse immigration lawlessness by the Democrats. Still waiting…
And get ready for the Democrats and their boutique judges to game class action as an alternative to universal injunctions. They probably already have that planned.
Diogenes, yes, DACA should knock off many? Is that what it’s really about? So it’s played into their hands while Jackson and Barrett repeat- shocking, shocking and how dare you?
This , too, subverts, is a usurpation of congressional law. It is by design and trickery perpetrated by a minority for personal gain and RICO in conspiracy and intent to break the law?
We shall see justices complicit?
My popcorn is cold and there is no distant shore of rest.
DACA will knock off some. The remaining 20 million will be harder.
Dio, I have found all crime is renders to self gain and is theft whether it’s theft of another’s life or citizenship. As DACA comes forward to rewrite law that they haven’t constitutional power to do the DACA in prisons will be brought forward. Will they rewrite law that says prisoners can be deported but not us, the good people?
If that doesn’t work won’t the thief just steal a life? If that doesn’t work the thief will steal a government?
The case was brought by three pregnant women the particulars of that weren’t easily available. I think it was three. I don’t see the class action idea of interest to justice. Stopping national injunctions of federal law enforcement is necessary. Ticking-off 20 million cases one case at a time from nation of origin may be justice.
Get the smelling salts for the ladies.
Yes, because precedent is in error the idea of get a birth cert it’s citizenship papers will hold. I don’t think they’re after more than DACA.
Dishonesty is limitless.
Word to the wise …
I had a similar thought Diogenes. I l formed a nonprofit that does Vulnerability Assessments for schools and houses of worship. The process requires we think like bad guys looking for weaknesses in security to do whatever intended harm.
Prior to the creation of this uniquely American experiment, enemies to it’s success existed. Our government and the constitution that binds it are effectively fixed targets for our enemies to employ lawfare strategies.
In general, lawfare needs weapons and people with the skills to wield them against a target. Maybe the enemy can succeed with unsophisticated dropboxes or dead people voting. Maybe it’s having a PINO (President In Name Only) and then auto-penning “his” actions.Maybe they can install operatives in district courts to impose nationwide injunctions.
Whatever the strategy, rest assured our enemies will not stop looking for the next area of vulnerability and the lawfare weapon to defeat it.
Yep!
Kudos, Olly. Obviously mapped out but could not have succeeded without the spineless GOP.
The lawfare strategy is being done by IT, AI. It can think faster then people and analyze every possible move. The better strategy is for man to simplify and honesty is a weapon.
AI can back people into corners on the otherhand causing people to err, commit a crime or sin. Then you’ve lost. Barrett and Gorsuch say as little as possible but Barrett stepped up this time. Well see how it plays out.
The opponent works on check and then check mate. Every time anyone interacts with AI, AI is learning.
“AI is learning.”
Two points. First, “AI” is only as good as the information it is pointed to by its trainers. If that “information” is the internet in general, then the intelligence it is capable of exhibiting (generally speaking) is the average intelligence of internet postings. Yes, you could make it try to discriminate among those postings, but that process is itself subject to similar constraints. Ultimately, the people involved in design, training, implementation, and maintenance effectively limit its maximum “IQ” (at least for now), and some of those people are not the sharpest knives on the tree.
Second point is that, whatever tactical or strategic advantage “AI” could provide is largely available to all, without regard to political POV. IOW it could be deployed against the wokists as well as against those of a more conservative viewpoint.
Frankly, I’m not at all a fan of “AI”. I think that it might be very useful in quite a number of very narrowly defined practical applications, but when deployed nearly universally, as it is now, it is doomed to fail over the long (and possibly medium) term. As a business and investment strategy, as it currently exists, it is very likely in process of inflating a huge, unsustainable, bubble. Unfortunately, it is also capable of causing a great deal of damage before that bubble deflates (or pops).
Kudos for pointing that out, Dio. Thank you.
Diogenes, what is the reason behind the lawless immigration?
Amnesty, leading to a two-tier justice system like Britain.
Many have noticed, Dio. They’re silent.
Justice Alito concurring is a serious read and I dislike subterfuge and perversion of the law.
Dems will most likely sweep congress.
So it is.
Concurring Alito’s opinion is all that’s worth reading.
Citizenship is deleted and has no meaning anymore. It’s just an address and the true Citizenship is the nation of origin.
Trump did make a mistake in the EO in permanent residents. He attempted to uphold the actual law otherwise.
Congrats dems on the win! Enjoy the destruction. There is no win at all.
Ketanji baby expressed concern that limiting judicial authority could lead to a “zone of lawlessness” where the Executive may act unlawfully without consequence — as if all of Washington DC, and every Democrat-run city, are not already “zones of lawlessness” — including the judges? Didn’t we all see what they did to Trump? And J6’ers? Uh, yeah.
Ketanji baby is about 20 IQ points outside her intellectual ‘zone of understanding’ even basic Constitutional law.
There’s doing law. And then there’s Ketanji’s way of ‘doing law.’
Ketanji baby forgets about the silly idea called ‘co-equal branches’ while arguing for judicial supremacy….full stop.
She actually used those words in her dissent: “Full stop.” O.M.G.
And she has the biggest mouth. Ketanji loves to hear herself talk. Hey Ketanji, it’s called judicial restraint. Try it sometime.
And you know KJB will never let them succeed in pressuring her to step down. She will not go quietly into her good night.
In other words, today in 2025 any judge can take away your 2nd Amendment gun rights and it may take several years to get your guns back.
A constitutional amendment with decades and centuries of case law can be taken away by a single judge and the legal gun owner is punished – not an incompetent government lawyer.
What goes around comes around!
There’s more guns than illegal aliens. It’ll take some time to round them up. ☺
Maybe you should round up some activist judges while you are at it?
Makes one wonder at times just how these highly stylized these Supreme Court decisions are created. Does the basic framework come from the Justice and then get honed to perfection by a cadre of brilliant law clerks selected from the best schools in the land? Perhaps the clerks do the legwork, the Shepardizing, and prepare the initial draft. It’s unlikely that they inject the acerbic remarks. That might be seen as impudent in a closed society otherwise given to decorum. It’s probably left to the Justices themselves as they ponder their final draft, sort of like Reagan’s impromptu decision while riding in the presidential limo to the Brandenberg Gate to tell Mr. Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” Funny, how history sometimes is made in soundbites. Few will read yesterday’s Supreme Court decision, but all will remember ACB’s smackdown of Jackson.
That’s a great question. I’ve always wondered myself. IMO, it depends on the justice. I suspect some take an active role in their opinion and leave it to the clerks to flesh out the citations of case law referenced. Others may have their clerks submit sections and they tie it all together. I think a way to discover which method a justice uses would be to go back to their earliest writings as a sitting judge. Compare how their opinions evolved over their careers prior to scotus. That would tell us a lot.
“. . . the *controversial* dissenting opinion of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson . . .” (JT, emphasis added)
Jackson: I, a Supreme Court justice, don’t wish to analyze the relevant statute, because that is boring “legalese” (i.e., the formal and technical language of the law) — a “mind-numbingly technical query.”
Please, JT: “controversial”?!
Try: abjectly anti-intellectual; mind-numbingly ignorant; a complete abdication of her professional responsibility; a nihilistic rejection of “the law is reason without passion;” the attitude of an emotion-drive spoiled child; an insult to every judge who ever penned an *argument*; spitting in the face of the centuries-long common law. A reason to impeach a Supreme Court Justice.
I have not read the opinion – is is 194 pages long. And maybe the opinion does get hings correct, but the problem is NOT with the constitution and the law, or even with nationwide injuctions.
The correct decision of this court was not to impose NEW criteria or make Nationwide injunctions MORE difficult or impossible, but to get lower courts to FOLLOW T?HE LAW as it already is.
That is not accomplished so much by deciding sweeping issues, and by slapping – even disciplining lower courts that go egregiously astray.
Nationwide injunctions are LEGITIMATE. They should also be incredibly rare.
The FIRST major issue related to nearly all this lawfare is that the lower courts are essentially deciding cases based on the initial claims of the plantiffs in a civil suit NOT waiting until the law has been fully argued and the facts have been fully laid out after hearings on the merits.
ALL TRO’s and injunctive releif are supposed to be limited to cases where it appears that the plantiffs are near certain to win, AND there is ireparable harm in waiting for a final decision before stopping the defendants.
Whether a courts decision is limited to its district or the nation that is a deliberately high bar to ANY injunctive releif.
The burden of proof in a lawsuit is on the plantiff. The circumstances in which a court grants the plantiff what they want WITHOUT hearing the entire case and all the pleadings and hearings should be incredibly rare even for cases that only apply to a district.
Doing otherwise inverts the burden of proof, and is the core problem with all this lawfare.
Contra some on the right – there is nothing wrong with attorneys for causes pursuing ANY successful strategy to acheive the goals of their clients. It is specifically the courts – the judges that are supposed to prevent the strategies of lawyers from becoming political weapons.
SCOTUS is atleast correct in that this is a JUDICIAL FAILURE – it is lower courts acting imperiously.
While in the current instance we are dealing with issues of separation of powers an the federal government.
The issue of granting injunctions that violate the constitution, the courts jurisdiction, the rule of law is a problem for ALL court cases.
The core problem is NOT that a small cadre of left wing judges is acting as president – though that is occuring,
it is that they do not give a schiff about the law and constitution in ANY cases.
The core problem is NOT with nationwide injunctions, it is NOT with injunctive relief.
This is NOT a problem that requires new law, or new limits on the courts.
The core problem is that these courts – and it is really only a small number – it is NOT even most democrat appointees.
It is less than 1/3 of all judges that have been appointed by democrats and less than 1% of republican appointed judges that are behaving lawlessly.
TRO’s and injunctive releif should NEVER occur on any case where:
The defendants actions do NOT cause ireparable harm.
That standard can almost never be met in an action in equity.
People who are terminated wrongfully can get damages when they win their case.
Restrictions on funding can be lifted – if and when a plantiff wins their case.
On issue after issue, relief can wait until after full briefings on the law and a full hearing of the facts the court makes a final decision – NOT a preliminary one.
It is WRONG for SCOTUS to impose new rules limiting nationwide injuctions or injunctions generally.
It is however absolutely RIGHT for SCOTUS to sanctions judges who are egregiously granting TRO’s or injunctions ESPECIALLY nationwide ones, without following already existing rules for doing so.
The problem here is with a small number of blatantly lawless judges – NOT with nationwide injunctions, not with the constitution, not with the federal law, not with the rules of judicial procedure.
It is with specific judges NOT following those.
I do not personally know what the power of the supreme court to impose sanctions on judges is – but I do know that roberts DOES wield some such power, and he should start using it.
SCOTUS does not need to make new rules or new law, It merely needs to sanction judges that egregiously violate clear provisions of existing law.
Did Barrett point out the single case of complete relief doesn’t become greater in a class action as her relief is already complete?
John Say-
Did you literally mean, “there is nothing wrong with attorneys for causes pursuing ANY successful strategy to acheive (sic) the goals of their clients.”? That would encourage, and even sanction, a lawyer lying, cheating or stealing so long as it was successful and in the client’s interest. Thankfully,
I never practiced in such a system, nor in the one KBJ’s dissent advocates.
Respectfully submitted.
-g
Dewey, Cheatham and Howe, P.A.
It’s only approx 100 pages. Cut Sotomayor’s and Jackson’s opinions.
Thank you for another excellent piece, Professor Turley.
It is unfathomable how much damage was done to this country in four years; had Kamala been victorious, we’d be toast, that much is clear. It’s also clear we must not allow the modern DNC anywhere near the levers of power ever again – particularly the ignorant, entitled, under-experienced and ever more communist squad and their ilk. Things could have been, and could be, so much worse if we hadn’t or don’t remain vigilant.
But, but, but, you don’t understand! I want what I want. That is her argument. Simple, Cogent. Stupid.
Excellent column professor!
SCOTUS ruled that no one in the US has any rights unless they individually sue for them.
Jackson said it right.
“The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.”
“Do remember: The Executive has not asked this Court to determine whether Executive Order No. 14160 complies with the Constitution. Rather, it has come to us seeking the right to continue enforcing that order regardless—i.e., even though six courts have now said the order is likely un-constitutional.”
I would stay anonymous if I had written something as risible as this.
Justice Jackson simply forgot to log in.
I wonder if she thinks that she should have make her joke of an opinion anonymous too.
I see appeal to emotion in place of logical arguments in her pathetic opinion. Six courts, could be sixty — only one matters in the end. Completely irrelevant.
Obviously the permanent residents, green cards will be deleted. The EO should hold-up.
Having to follow the text of the law. What a revolutionary concept. If one does not follow the text of the law then on what will the be the foundation of any judicial decision. How one feels that day? That just does not seem quite right to me.
The law, as written, is the foundation of the Constitutional government. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think that was the whole purpose of writing the Constitution. Not only was it to be the foundation of our government and how it operates but it also is a contract with the people. The states had to ratify the Constitutions for it to come into effect. Government breaks faith with that contract if any of the Government fails to follow the law. And that means all parts Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
Did Justice Jackson explain why the Executive should follow the text of the law if the Judicial does not follow the text of the law also.
The ultimate arbitor of all this are the people and they made their decision in 11/2024. Courts have been considered notorious for not overturning obviously corrupt elections, seeking to not interfere in the peoples voting and choice. Except now! when DJT was elected along a with a Republican House and Senate and now they seek to overturn the results of the election. That sounds Imperial or King-like. Sort of like turning colonies over to imperial rule and closing down the legislatures and elected governors because parliament and they King did not like their decisions.. That brought forth firearms in masse.
The conservative side of the court has been consistent. They overturned Roe vs Wade which had no foundation in the Consitution and returned the decision to the people of each state to decide abortion there instead of a judicial fiat.
They are again setting back district judicial fiats that seek to overturn the executive’s power under the law.
Liberal justices do not like to follow the law as written; they either want to make it up as they go OR they seek out some foreign countries response to some issue and use that as the basis of their decisions…that sounds like to me grounds for impeachment. Why in the world to we continue to put up with idiots on the benches of America who do these things?
Completely agree, GEB. Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan don’t understand the limits of their work are quasi legislators usurping the powers of the executive and legislative branches and the people. It’s unspeakable really.
Not only the usurpation but seek to impose their inability to grasp right and wrong as immoral laws imposed upon a nation by their minorities. It is one thing to decriminalization and another thing to then give immorality an honorific.
Unfortunately the future looks grim as the population is becoming immoral and insane as insanity is the inability to know right from wrong.
The three progressive justices should not be justices at all but rather legislators. It is quite unbearable in its immorality and the future does not exist because the path leads to destruction of a good and moral USA.
To leave and find rest on some foreign shore is much envied of those who have done so.
* decriminalization
Another error but can’t fix. Pardon
In the dictionary Kagan’s picture is next to the the entry “arrogance”.
Trump v. CASA needn’t go further than rational scrutiny as well as immigration law. It’s not for judges nor justices to show their bleeding hearts while on the bench.
Tennessee was actually brought so low as to need a law prohibiting the surgical removal of a minor’s genitals and Robert’s spells it out in its multiple ways. The three dissented.
Stunning
Was it Barrett? Pardon, thinking Skrmetti.
I really can’t listen to oral arguments anymore. I’m always so uncomfortable that Jackson’s teeth will fly out.
Adieu
The willingness of the Democratic Party to embrace the “no kings rhetoric” demonstrates its obliviousness to historical reality.
Hereditary monarchs may or may not be dictators. The issue is not how the highest official in the state is chosen — whether by democratic election, or by election of intermediary bodies such as our electoral college (now is just a formality) or by election by other princes (the Holy Roman Empire), or by birthright (kings and queens), or even by military victory (e.g., the Norman Conquest). The issue is public law, whether a written constitution or strongly-established custom constrains the discretionary powers of the leaders.
In the absence of public law, any governmental leader can easily become a dictator. In our time, the greatest dictators have been party leaders, e.g. Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Contrariwise, for several centuries the heredity monarchs of Europe have been constrained by public law. Further contrariwise, our elected Presidents have often acted like dictators, esp. in wartime, e,g., Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. In their cases, public law was tacitly ignored because of the excitement of war or because they were strong party leaders backed up by feelings of partisanship. It might even be said that in mass democracies, it is the political party that is the greatest threat to public law.
The stupid is great with this one. Maybe she can follow up on her stage career. Fully deserved smack down and why DEI must DIE.
Oh yes, the stage performance. She’s having a hard time. She and Sotomayor need to go.
DEI hire!
And let’s not forget that she was forged in a total environment of left wing ideologies by her parents. This one is irretrievable
Fair to say Jackson will never write a majority opinion.
They should let her some day, just for the laughs.
Wouldn’t she, just for once, be in the majority???
Oddly enough, she has been with the conservative majority from time to time. The ruling regarding the egregious attempt by state-level actors to remove a certain presidential candidate from the ballot was unanimous.
I wonder if any of those, on the state level, who egregiously worked to remove a certain presidential candidate from the ballot, were ACTRESSES, or were they all just ACTORS? In this day and time, I can’t imagine that some of them weren’t women.
Are you a biologist? Are you assuming their gender?
“Fair to say Jackson will never write a majority opinion.”
Unfortunately, that is far from certain. If the Democrats should return to power in both houses of Congress and the White House, one of the very first agenda items they will pursue is to expand and pack SCOTUS. In which case we could conceivably see a Court in which Jackson Brown exemplifies the majority.
AI writes it for her. Sotomayor is off the deep end. Her husband needs to step in.
Justice Jackson disagrees with everyone and everything, how could she ever write a “majority” opinion?
Don’t jinx yourself.
Now thank Jackson got criticized she will now unleash all her invective against any and all laws she deems inconvenient.
This was just round one. The fight between the judges (maybe all liberal judges in the USA) is going to get nasty.
Take no Prisoners!
Ketanji perhaps should have followed her singing/acting skills instead of trying to understand/interpret the law. I understand her turn in the Broadway musical was a positive one. This display of judicial ignorance not so much.
I guess with her positive singing career behind her she could do public service announcement in song – must as some of the drug companies do.
Re: “…Democracy means getting what you want when you want it”. Excellent comment. Similar to a comment ive made for years: the Left appears to hate the Constitution when it does not deliver the desired outcome.