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.
The “untethered” (not to mention unhinged) dissenting opinion of Justice KB Jackson invokes an alien…, no, not a terrestrial one from Mexico…, but specifically, a Martian (dissent slip op. at 19) in attempted support of her fevered views.
She poses the rhetorical question of, against the backdrop of President Trump’s policies and actions — which in true TDS fashion, she detests — whether such a creature would ask “what good is the Constitution…?” The answer, of course, is that the Martian would need only read Justice Barrett’s majority opinion…, oh, and the 14th Amendment’s legislative history, to learn of the Constitution’s worth.
That said, the smart money posits that the Martian would not need to read Gray’s Anatomy to be able to define what a woman is. Not only is KBJ the first chromosomal XX black justice, she may be eventually shown to be the first justice nominated by autopen.
It’s the lack of integrity.
I’m not sure at this point Judge jackson can spell integrity , let alone understand it’s definition.
The “minutiae” comment is grounds for removal from office.
She cites fake science, can’t cite real science, and considers judicial writings about the meanings of laws minutiae.
Her presence is as dangerous to the Court as it is to the American mind, as we witnessed a full quarter of the country (liberal women) grow stupider from her influence, finding themselves, too, unable to define a woman for one reason only — this fake justice said it first.
“Minutiae.” My god.
She is a true DEI person. Little to know real schooling.
KBJ is unfortunately the victim of public education…. Anyone who takes no more than 10 seconds to read our Constitution should know that what she’s saying is BS… Thank libtard Presidents like Clinton, Obama, and Biden for being ‘anti-American when they select nominees for the Supreme Court.
She’s a bit out of her league? Roberts needs to harness her as she constantly interrupts.
The first Nationwide Injunction from a District Court didn’t happen until 1963. The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788. For 175 years this country lived and excelled (warts and all) without Judges acting like Petty Kings.
Since 1963 District Judges, primarily liberal, have used as a weapon to inflict their politics upon the Executive. The Supreme Court, for whatever reason, let it slide. Not unsurprising to Court Watchers such as myself as the Supreme Court is known to do that with many issues, often for very stupid reasons.
It is about time the Supreme Court disarmed these Petty Kings and put them in their place.
Can you provide a link to the first injunciton papers? Would love to see how they set such a precedent.
-Rabble
You all are being way too harsh on Jackson. She serves a greater purpose other than delivering intelligent, well-reasoned judgements on cases before the SC. She will be a persistent cautionary reminder to warn voters against giving in to the DEI/Affirmative Action ideologues.
We don’t need a Jessica Tarlow on the Supreme Court, especially when her vote counts just as much as the other 8.
-Rabble
Of all of the many sins that demented Word Salad Joe foisted upon America, brain dead Jackson, an unqualified racist, is undoubtedly among the top five.
KBJ’s failure to define what a woman is was just a precursor to this idiocy. Someone recently complied a posting with all of her “I dont understand” statements. IIRC it is over 2 minutes long.
Is it possible to impeach a judge for their stupidity?
Or their lack of qualifications….DEI aside?
Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one. So, yes, it is possible to impeach a judge for their stupidity.
“The Shocking District Breakdown
Out of 94 total federal districts in America, just 5 liberal districts issued 35 of the 40 nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s agenda.
Five districts were controlling policy for 330 million Americans.”
And Ketanji thinks this is how it should be?
hese quotes from a sitting Scotus Judge that were made before being nominated for and appointed to the Supreme Court.
These quotes show a disrespect, even a disregard, for the Constitution which all Judges swear to uphold by claiming that personal experiences, gender, color and national origin override Constitutional law.
– “Yet,because I accept the proposition that… “to judge is an exercise of power” and because… “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives-no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” ….
– I further accept that….. experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.
-The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration becauseit denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.
– enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.
-Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences…
our gender and national origins will make a difference in our judging.
-Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
-I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” End quotes.
“A Latina Judge’s Voice” — an address by Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Source: Berkeley La Raza Law Journal Volume 13 Number 1 (2002) Symposium 2002
“La Raza (the Race) Law Journal is a pretty big “tell”.
In Ketanji’s own words:
“Instead, to the majority, the power hungry actors are … (wait for it) … the district courts.”
It just seems odd to me that a district judge could have more authority than a Supreme Court justice. A single SCOTUS justice has to convince four others to issue a ruling that has nationwide effect, but a single district judge can do it on a whim?
That’s what Ketanji believes. Judicial supremacy is her thang.
Do you think Ketanji is at all embarrassed? Nah.
She’s gonna keep stirring things up. She’s gonna fight. She’s gonna make sure she takes up space.
Remember Kamala’s favorite power move? “I’m speaking. I’m speaking.” Head bobbling. Finger waving. Nothing but incoherent word salads. But y’all better listen because, “I’m speaking.”
Remember how awful Biden’s DEI press secretary was at the job? Unprepared. Self-righteous when pressed, “A little respect, please.” She even said at one point: “I’m a historical figure.” They tried to force Karine Jean-Pierre to step down, but she refused, and became even more indignant.
KBJ has the same mindset. “Don’t you know who I am? I’m a historical figure.”
Righteous entitlement leaves no room for embarrassment. Ketanji has an agenda. She’s a fighter for the cause, the revolution. She ain’t going nowhere.
It’s so bad when you put the wrong person in the wrong position for all the wrong reasons.
Kamala would be great as say, a morning host on some vapid talk show. Giggle and cackle away, girl. The audience would love you. But she has zero depth of understanding of complex issues facing this country. None.
Karine Jean Pierre would be good at something else as well. But she wasn’t up to the job Biden gave her.
Ketanji belongs on Broadway starring in a musical – her lifelong dream come true. But she does not belong on the highest court in the land.
“Whenever I talk about how dumb KBJ is, I inevitably get a response that argues that Kagan or Sotomayor must be worse. I am not one for unironic hyperbole, especially on this subject.
I think most can’t fully appreciating how incredibly absurd KBJ’s legal reasoning skills actually are.
She has the vocabulary skills necessary to fool one into believing she is intelligent, but her jurisprudential philosophy is so nonsensically twisted, her understanding of history so incredibly poor, that were she writing for the Majority, our country’s legal system would dramatically shift into an all-but-official Government of Judges-and-Vibes within years.
Kagan and Sotomayor can articulate a legal principle. KBJ seems to be genuinely incapable of it.”
@Merovingianus
I disagree. She must be taken seriously. She is neither dumb nor inarticulate. She is an ideologue. She expresses as best she can her commitment to values that are often contrary to the Constitution and American values.
She’s not dumb?
Did you catch the part where Amy Coney Barrett said to Jackson:
“See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison (1803)”
Essentially saying… “How did you pass the bar?”
Actually, we must assume Ketanji knew about the silly legalese and precedents, but flagrantly ignored it in service of asserting her own ‘vibes’ about the matter.
More like, “how did you pass grade school Civics?”
Amy Coney Barrett actually wrote in response to Ketanji’s nonsense:
“See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison (1803)”
Essentially… “How did you pass the bar?”
“Conclusions:
KBJ does not address any of the Majority’s citation of precedent and totally waves her hand dismissively at the very concept of Common Law.
In support of the Judiciary’s Supremacy over the Executive, she repeatedly cites the most ardent Monarchist in American history.
In support for why the judges should wield this power, she repeatedly cites a French Judge whose position was eliminated for wielding too much power.
She argues in favor of two competing understandings of the Majority’s Opinion at the same time and somehow concludes that both of them support her. Her opinion is so weak, baseless, and poorly written that not even Kagan or Sotomayor joined her Dissent.
She repeatedly asserts beliefs as core to the founding principles of this country despite them not being held by the Founders. She cites no actual authority for her conclusions, but cites numerous homiletic catchphrases that her malformed logic ties together.
If the Court had adopted her opinion, we would be living under a government akin to the Sanhedrin or Velyat-e Faqih, where our jurisprudential experts wield Imperium and all the rest of the State is limited by their infinite wisdom.”
@Merovingianus
She would do well in Israel where judicial supremacy reigns.
Sotomayor is a legislator wearing a judicial robe. She spoke publicly against lower judges issuing nationwide injunctions then (because it’s Trump) she voted against what she previously advocated.
Did you enjoy Soto
asking , what if there were an
EO to confiscate guns? Sauer might have said, well mam that’d be a declaration of war prolly. No need no uneeversal injunction. Are you suggesting ? Is that a threat, mam?
I see nothing in the birthright citizenship that even approaches the level of a “concerning shift” of power between the Executive and Judicial branches. It is pretty much business-as-usual
Yes, the courts have been granting nationwide injunctions far more frequently, ostensibly shifting power from the President to the SCOTUS. Yes too, this decision ostensibly shifts the balance back towards the President. So what? That is how the Separation of Powers, as well as Checks and Balances, is supposed to work.
Ketanji Brown Jackson has earned her spot in the kiddie corner for Supreme Court deliberations. Nobody can take her seriously any longer.
She dismisses as a “mind-numbingly technical query” the thought of other justices on the practices of the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of Judiciary Act of 1789 in the new United States which used English common law and practice at the time the Judiciary Act was drafted. But that “legalese is only a smokescreen” she declares.
It needn’t disturb her mind which, clearly, is already numb. Who, but Ketanji, would be surprised to discover “legalese” in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court?
In fact common law is still important both in the federal government and in all of the States except Louisiana [it follows Civil Law from the Code of Napoleon by way of Justinian].
The original Judiciary Act of 1789 expressly incorporated all of the law and Writs [The All Writs section] of England insofar as they did not conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States. It was swallowed whole and became a part of our public law.
The Constitution of the State of New York does something similar adopting “the common law” as of 19 APR 1775 into the laws of the State. Other states [except Louisiana] have similar provisions, usually by statute.
“NY CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, Sec 14 14
Common Law and Acts of the Colonial and State Legislatures
Such parts of the common law, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said colony, and of the convention of the State of New York, in force on the twentieth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and such acts of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same. But all such parts of the common law, and such of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated.”
It is a legal system standing on centuries of actual experience fought out in courts and tribunals. The more one learns of it the more one respects it. It is a masterpiece of civilization, like a great cathedral of an elegant mathematical demonstration.
But Ketanji sees only mind-numbing legalese.
I think that not only is she unfit to be a justice, I doubt she should even be a lawyer.
100% agree. DEI hire at it’s finest. Liberals with any conscience at all should be embarrasses to be in the same room with her.(Does she even know what a woman is?)
AKA Affirmative Action: by any other name, it’s still affirmative action. No competence needed.
Affirmative action and DEI are two entirely different things. You may hate both, but that does not give license to conflate these distinct legal and policy (and extralegal) objectives.
She is a half brain.
“It is a masterpiece of civilization . . .”
Well said.
And KJ just snubs her nose at it. As her fellow nihilists snub their noses at every achievement of Western civilization.
She believes western civilization must be deleted in every part and parcel, jot and tittle.
Roberts need to control his court. Listening to oral arguments it became apparent that Jackson and sotomayor had arranged a disruption by constant butting in disallowing answers to questions. Some justices became aware and attempted to gain control back to questions and answers but that failed leaving Roberts unheeded words “we’d like to hear the answers” after a Jackson but-in.
Nonsensical
*needs
Imagine how she would have fared in Professor Kingfield’s con law class in the paper chase? Kicked right out.
I remember the movie, Paper Chase, and I mostly wondered why the law students had so much free time.
Just another stupid lying black racist woman …
Wow. Hahahahahahahaha – Maybe you should record yourself and play it back.
Just another stupid lying black racist woman …
Wow. Just “another of us,” huh? Way to tar us all with the same brush. So if I said that about Biden, “Just another white man,” and implicated all white men as weak, impotent liars who have inappropropriate relations with their daughters and wantonly sniff children, that would make sense to you? Why impugn (tacitly) all or most women of African descent because of this one female Justice? And no, she’s not “just another” [insert your improper explosive here]. She is a Supreme Court Justice. A problematic one, to be sure. But you can criticize her terrible jurisprudence and her horrid politics without impugning her race or her sex. Or, maybe you can’t.
OT
The U.S. policy should allow temporary workers to enter America, complete their jobs, and go home.
Unions rail against that.
The likes of Nicole Kidman, Salma Hayek, Christian Bale, et al., are temporary workers who work and go home.
Strawberry pickers must never be allowed to work, become citizens, and VOTE.
High producers and achievers should be merely considered for long-term candidacy for citizenship.
Just for the record:
Nicole Kidman, US citizen, born in Hawaii.
Salma Hayek, naturalized US citizen.
Christian Bale, married to US citizen, naturalized US citizen
Like most of the MAGA morons here you get your information from the voices in your head, and just make sh!t up.
Preach!!!
Good job you got and A for being a “A-ole . “!!!
Calling MAGA morons is the reason why you lost 2024.
You Super Smart Elites don’t get it!!!
Given Jackson’s moronic dissent, I’d say you libs have the moron title all to yourselves.
That boring ‘legalize’ that KBJ didn’t want to deal with, is her job. I want to know if she was appointed by autopen.
Auto pen passed 1 infrastructure bill (being clawed back by the orange moron), 1 bill for future of chip development in this country (being clawed back by the orange moron), and 1 bill for budget reduction – which also had infrastructure (being clawed back by the orange moron). The orange grifter will make money every way he can – he just tells you fools words like “strong””smart””huge””the best””gigantic””enemies” and you believe him. If you live in a rural area – red or blue – the big beautiful bill has a knife for your local hospital.
You use moron alot……
…Says the “Moron” that couldn’t see Biden for the brain dead lying pedo he is, but is apparently enamored with the deep intellectual word salads Kamala puked up on a regular basis between the hyena cackles of embarrasment.
Look around “Moron” the world and the US are a whole lot better now after just 5 months and most decent people would say that even most “morons” would agree with that.
So….logical progression would conclude that you’ve self promoted yourself from “moron” to full blown IDIOT.
I’m sure you’ll be proud, but be silent.
“What can be, unburdened by what has been.”
– Fake Justice Ketanji “Kamalala Harris” Brown
The episode is not suprising in the least as it’s been in the planning for years. It’s just what they chose her to do, and It fits perfectly with radical Democratic ideology. Putting her on the court is the only bigger farce than the votes of the 3 so-called Republicans that approved of her: Collins, Murkowski, and Romney (what a malevolent tool Mitt Romney ends up as).
This. We dump on Ketanji (rightly) but forget that what put her on the bench were three Republican turncoats who would rather knife Trump even if the country’s system suffers for decades. Fixing the country rests on getting these louts, and clowns like Ketanji, out of office.
Name the senators!
It is now clear why Justice Jackson couldnt be bothered with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself…..analyzing the governing statute involves boring “legalese,”…. . Justice Jackson was placed on SCOTUS by autopen Doktur Jill, so that she would parrot imbecilic DNC talking points while confounding everyone in her midst. Now Jackson has to live with the fact that she has been characterized as someone who is out of her league when sitting on SCOTUS. That is cruelty to her. Democrats have zero respect for the elderly with cognitive impairment, for blacks but especially zero respect for democracy. Of course they counted on an Imperial Judiciary until Justice Barrett rubbed it in her face that she is a moron. Her “Im not a biologist” snark was our warning and Jackson has not disappointed!
Karl Mehta
@karlmehta
3/ The Shocking District Breakdown
Out of 94 total federal districts in America, just 5 liberal districts issued 35 of the 40 nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s agenda. Five districts were controlling policy for 330 million Americans.
[snip]
11/ Why This All Matters
This solves the timing problem we had:
• Nationwide injunctions used to tie up policies in courts for 2+ years
• Presidents only have 4-year terms
• By the time appeals were won, it was too late to implement
• This ruling removes that delay completely
https://x.com/karlmehta/status/1938947308202479962
Jackson was a nominee by the unelected committee that usurped the office of president. It is the elected Senators that seated her. Let’s look at the vote to confirm?
She’d be a nominee today but for a few racist Republican senators, Estovir.
Mississippi v Johnson 1867
9-0
The Supreme Court unanimously denied Mississippi’s motion to file the bill for an injunction, holding that the judiciary could not enjoin the President from performing his official duties, particularly those involving executive discretion. The Court ruled that the enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts by President Johnson was an executive and political function, not a ministerial one, and thus was not subject to judicial restraint.
The Supreme Court unanimously denied Mississippi’s motion to file the bill for an injunction, holding that the judiciary could not enjoin the President from performing his official duties, particularly those involving executive discretion. The Court ruled that the enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts by President Johnson was an executive and political function, not a ministerial one, and thus was not subject to judicial restraint.
Furthermore the Court ruled that the President has Presidential Immunity and can’t be sued for any actions he takes in giving directives to the Executive Branch .
This is history.
14th Amendment, Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. (If I may point out) subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This in it self, an Illegal Alien could not be (subject to jurisdiction). They would not have a Birth Certificate of Record. No subject to the jurisdiction. Just being here in person is not Subject. Rejected Please move on.
Try being summoned for jury duty.
Then you KNOW you’re “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
If su madre could not have been summoned for jury duty, you KNOW you were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
It’s right there, anon, ” in the State wherein they RESIDE”. Residence, has qualifications one of which is lawful immigration papers.
Repubs won. This case was about universal injunctions. The next cases filed and response are citizenship. Babies reside with parents and have no immigration papers of their own nor residency. Some smart commenter have told you this. State wherein they reside.
No citizenship unless it’s lawful via immigration.
* has 😏
Since when have you all cared about laws? The millions, legal or illegal count on the census.
Seems to me you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof of the nation that can issue you a passport. If neither of your parents can get a US passport then my dear child you are a citizen of whatever country they can get a passport from.
It’s times like these when I wish “Bill & Ted’s Excellent adventure” were possible.
Bring the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, the drafters of the original Bill of rights, and the authors of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to this time and place and let them tell us, in their own words, not just their writings, what they actually meant.
I dare say many Americans might not wanna hear what they actually had to say. I think these wise men would just shake their heads in sadness and disgust.
What the Founders and Framers actually meant exists forever in the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America, fulfilling precisely their dreams, intentions, and plans.
The communist authors of the “Reconstruction Amendments” of Karl Marx deserve to be ignored and overturned, as it was they themselves who ignored and overturned, by brute force, the duly legislated statutory and fundamental law in America, a nation that was established soberly, solemnly, and earnestly as one of self-governance.
The “Reconstruction Amendments” are moot, as their long-suffering beneficiaries must have been immediately and compassionately repatriated per existing immigration law on January 1, 1863.
Mr. Turley…excellent article…thank you for your analysis and opinions. You are appreciated!
Amen!
Kudos SCOTUS!
Barrett explains how a universal injunction is incorrect in this case. She’s setting-up the lower courts as sort of stupid? She then sets them on the right course. Who can disagree?