I wrote recently about the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has drawn the ire of colleagues in opinions for her rhetoric and extreme positions. Many have expressed alarm over her adherence to what has been described by a colleague as an “imperial judiciary” model of jurisprudence. Now, it appears that Jackson’s increasingly controversial opinions are serving a certain cathartic purpose for the far-left Biden appointee.
On ABC News, Jackson stated, “I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do.”
Her colleagues have not entirely welcomed that sense of license. The histrionic and hyperbolic rhetoric has increased in Jackson’s opinions, which at times portray her colleagues as abandoning not just the Constitution but democracy itself.
Her dissent in the recent ruling on universal injunctions drew the rebuke of Justice Amy Coney Barrett over what was described as “a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.” Barrett wrote:
“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.”
Jackson, however, clearly feels that opinions are a way for her to opine on issues of the day.
She is not alone. Across the country, liberal judges have been adding their own commentary to decisions in condemning Trump, his supporters, and his policies.
I previously wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary.
District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. Chutkan lashed out at “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was still under investigation at the time, and when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.
Later, Chutkan again added her own commentary when asked to dismiss a case due to Trump pardoning Jan. 6 defendants. She acknowledged that she could not block the pardons but proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”
One of Chutkan’s colleagues, Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump’s actions, writing, “[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.”
Then there is Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee, who has been criticized for conflicted rulings in Trump cases and his bizarre (and ultimately abandoned) effort to banish January 6th defendants from the Capitol.
Last week, Mehta had a straightforward question of jurisdiction concerning a challenge to the denial of grants by the Trump Administration. While correctly dismissing the challenge, Mehta decided to add his own commentary on Trump’s priorities and policies:
“Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence. But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.”
For Justice Jackson, her opinions have at times left her isolated on the Court. Weeks ago, Jackson and Sotomayor were alone in dissent over the defiance of a district court judge of the Court’s decision on universal injunctions. To her credit, Justice Elena Kagan (who voted with Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent in the earlier case) voted with her conservative colleagues in rebuking Judge Brian Murphy in Boston.
Kagan joined in the reversal of Murphy’s conflicting order and wrote the new order “clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.”
This week, Jackson lost even Sotomayor and stood alone in her dissent in support of an injunction over plans to downsize the government. Sotomayor observed that the Trump order only ordered for agencies to plan for such downsizing and said that the courts could hardly enjoin such policy preparations in the Executive Branch.
However, Jackson could and would.
The controversial position of Jackson on the Court is not due to her liberal views. We have had many such liberal jurists. The difference is how Jackson views her role as a justice.
The danger is not confined to opinions. For years, justices have yielded to the temptations of public speaking before supportive groups. I have long been a critic of what I called the era of “celebrity justices” where members seem to maintain political constituencies in public events.
Such speeches can not only undermine the integrity of the Court by discussing matters that may come before it, but they can create a desire to maintain the adoration of supporters. The greatest danger is that justices will consciously or subconsciously pander to their bases with soundbites and inflammatory rhetoric.
Judicial advocacy from the bench has been a concern since the founding. Article III can have a corrosive impact on certain jurists who come to view themselves as anointed rather than appointed. Most judges and justices are acutely aware of that danger and struggle to confine their rulings to the merits of disputes, avoiding political questions or commentary.
The “opportunity to tell people how I feel” can become a slippery slope where opinions become more like judicial op-eds. The Court is not a cable show. The price of the ticket to being “one of nine” is that you should speak only through your opinions and only on the narrow legal matter before you.
Opinions must remain “opportunities” to do simple justice, not a supreme editorial.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right.”
This column ran on Fox.com
The Trump administration is finally saying the quiet part out loud and admitting that ICE uses racial profiling to detain people.
President Donald Trump’s hand-picked border czar, Tom Homan, is facing backlash from legal and political experts after asserting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents do not need “probable cause” to detain individuals, and can do so based on factors like “personal appearance.”
“Look, people need to understand,” Homan told Fox News on Friday. ICE officers “don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain and question them. They just need to tally the circumstances, right?” he claimed. “They just go through their observation, you know, get out typical facts based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance,”
So now probable cause is unnecessary.
ICE agents are instructed to detain people based on their physical appearance.
I eagerly await Turley’s exhaustive condemnation of this blatantly unconstitutional activity.
(Unfortunately, I will probably have to wait until the end of time)
(I think you might be confusing your definition of racial profiling with disparate impact….
Call it what you like, it is still blatantly unconstitutional.
ICE is proudly and publicly announcing that they are completely ignoring probable cause.
Do you not find that alarming ??????
It’s not illegal, unconstitutional, or alarming. Nice try though.
Have you ever taken a law school course on criminal procedure? It seems not. The police do not need probable cause to approach someone and ask questions. It’s called a “mere encounter” in legalese. The person has the freedom to ignore the officer and walk away. The police can use appearance factors for a mere encounter.
The police don’t even need probable cause to do a stop and frisk – called a “Terry stop” in legalese. They only need reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in violating the law. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause.
The only thing the police need probable cause for is to arrest someone, or to get a search warrant.
Anonymous @ 3:21 and NotSoOld from Kansas:
Well, there’s a winning team we got here!
You handle the “probable cause” and I handle the racial profiling/disparate impact arguments! What is the smiley-face meme for high-fiving?
✋
😊
” The police do not need probable cause to approach someone and ask questions. ”
Police are also not under any legal obligation to stick to the truth during one of those encounters. They are free to fabricate any falsehood they like to try to trick the interrogated person into some incriminating answer. I have never liked that very much, but it is the law.
Check.
No. No. No. “Call it what you like” doesn’t fly here. They are not the same.
In meeting a burden of proof, a showing of statistical disparity DOES NOT EQUAL OR ESTABLISH discrimination by racial profiling,.
Moreover, you must show that that ICE policy CAUSED the statistical disparity.
How can you show that when you ask yourself:
How many blond, blue-eyed persons are crossing the border illegally and therefore detained?
How many white teenager males are crossing the border illegally and therefore detained?
How many Czechs or Polish, or Lithuanian, or South Vietnamese persons are crossing the border illegally and therefore detained? (Using either the four-fifths rule or standard deviation calculation)?
etc.
Statistically, I proffer that your burden is unsustainable, and in fact, unattainable, and likely why it has not been manifest in legal action. Additionally, you would need to not only defeat ICE’s “functional business necessity” defense, but also articulate an alternate policy that would achieve the same objective with less impact.
You appear to be applying the same emotional reasoning as Justice Jackson.
Your King of propaganda is under check….checkmate is closing in on you, subject to your reply.
So harassing brown people at Home Depot is a more important activity for ICE, rather than hunting down murderers, rapists, and drug traffickers.
Papers please………
Your need to qualify your argument by narrowing arrestees to “murderers, rapists, and drug traffickers” shows how weak your entire premise is here. I thought the argument was racial profiling and probable cause. “murderers, rapists, and drug traffickers” rarely hang out at Home Depot in full sight, or attempt employment there.
I thought the issue was RACIAL PROFILING and PROBABLE CAUSE. Moving the goalposts doesn’t help your shallow rebuttal.
Here’s just a single location-for one month-
“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed to NBC4 Saturday that federal agents arrested more than three dozen people during an operation in June targeting multiple Home Depot stores in LA County…CBP arrested 14 illegal aliens during an operation near Figueroa Street, and 11 illegal aliens in North Hollywood, CA, and 12 illegals on Sunset Boulevard. Criminal histories of those detained include drug trafficking, firearm offenses, theft, forgery, DUIs, and battery.”
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/federal-agents-arrested-37-people-outside-3-home-depot-stores/3739286/
Good point anonymous. The other anonymous moved from it’s unconstitutional! to I disagree with the way ICE is exercising its managerial discretion.
(that was frm me (a@5:43) I often hit send after completing my thought.
Oh, nice. You made a good point.
-Uncle Henry
Probable cause has never been necessary to ask someone for ID, from individuals in the same working group as criminal illegal aliens.
If you can’t prove who you are, you get detained until you do. Which is easy for citizens of the U.S.
For illegal aliens, not so much. See how that works?
“facing backlash from legal and political experts”
Name them. I don’t believe they exist other than in your head. Nothing of what he said was abnormal for police.
When the liquor store owner reports that the armed robber was black
Are the police supposed to detain Hispanics Asians and caucasians for that crime ?
Race is an immutable identifying characteristic
Where the race of a suspect is known or likely it can be used to eliminate people from the pool of suspects
Just as hair color height sex attire can be used when known
Probable cause is the standard that must be met for a criminal arrest
Reasonable suspicion is the standard that must be met to stop and question
We are supposed to be blind to race when hiring
Not when looking for someone whose race is known or highly probable
If you are looking for the president on the Dias you do not look for short thin block women
All mexicans, haitians, etc., who were born in the U.S. to a foreign national mexican mother were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., are NOT U.S. citizens, and are subject to immediate deportation. The 14th Amendment was NOT FOR FOREIGNERS, per the amendment’s author. Read it.
These leftist judges forget who they are. They are not the nation’s moral philosophers. They are public servants. We pay them to make an honest effort to understand and apply the law as it is written, not to get on their high horse and pontificate at us concerning their own moral philosophy. The unmitigated arrogance is what annoys.
Millions of Americans support the imposition of work requirements for billionaires receiving massive tax cuts, a new poll released on Friday indicates.
In the words of one poll respondent, “With the exception of Donald Trump, many of these billionaires are able-bodied.”
According to the poll, an overwhelming number of Americans believe that, in order to receive their benefits, billionaires should collect trash along the highway or clean public toilets.
The broadest majority of respondents “strongly agreed” with the statement, “They should pick all the fruit and vegetables that used to be picked by migrants.”
^ Paid DNC troll. Ignore. ^
The average life expectancy in the US is currently around 80 years, or 29,200 days. And yet you choose to waste day after day posting meaningless stuff that nobody will read on a website of a law professor. You need to reevaluate your life choices. How many days do you have left to waste? Tick tock.
It seems you are wrong when you say nobody will will waste time reading my comments.
Apparently you are wasting time reading my pointless drivel, and then wasting even more time crafting a snotty reply.
So obviously I am achieving my goal.
If you goal is to waste your life, then you’re succeeding magnificently. Congratulations. However, it’s just another slice of time that you’ve thrown away. Tick tock.
Tick tock, the seconds of your life just keep going by. Spend them more wisely.
I strongly suggest that you stop wasting your life reading and responding to my pointless comments.
Tick, tock.
Tick tock, an opportunity to make a new friend, but you wasted the chance because you were furiously refreshing the page of a law professor’s blog. Tick tock, there went a potential husband you could have met, but you were too busy writing a snarky comment on a law professor’s blog. Tick tock. We’re only trying to help you to live your only life better.
What poll?
….Now that you’ve established the “work requirements for billionaires,” please start with your benefactors: e.g., Michael Bloomberg, Alexander Soros, the Obamas, the Clintons (especially Chelsea), the Biden Family racketeers, the Pelosis, Hollywood royalty like George Clooney and Tom Hanks: there are SO MANY of the uber-wealthy in your camp that could contribute so much to the betterment of our society than USING, exploiting, the brown peons you leverage so hypocritically but lovingly call “migrants.”
Can there be no better evidence to support the suspicion of President Biden’s cognitive impairment than his nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court? After Donald Trump leaves the presidency he can do the country one last favor by going back to reality television and producing, a la Judge Judy, a “Judge Ketanji” show where she “can have a wonderful opportunity” to opine on issues of the day. I’m sure he could pay her a reasonable amount of money that would both encourage her to resign from the Supreme Court yet still make the production profitable.
*. The bets in Las Vegas were the Senate wouldn’t confirm.
The odds makers failed to understand just how profoundly f*ck3d up in the head Collins, Romney, and Murkowski are.
On-topic: a radical publisher is giving Jackson nearly a million dollars for a memoir she writes few people actually read, and so the publisher can never really recoup the money spent. There is an agenda at play here.
Who would be interested in the “memoir” of the most junior Supreme Court justice, barely in her 50s, who didn’t even have a distinguished stint on a federal appeals court?
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21733/bertelsmann-paying-supreme-court-justices
Jackson received a $893,750 advance for her memoir and is now reporting $2 million in profits last year. These would be record numbers for a Supreme Court Justice’s biography from a book that hardly anyone had noticed when it came out. And while books can become unexpected successes once released, there was little sign of that happening. . . . You might be forgiven for having missed it when “Lovely One” came out. As the media politely notes, it was “briefly” on the New York Times bestseller list and is now going for half price on Amazon. That is mostly to be expected of the ghostwritten memoir of an obscure judge.
Indirect Funding Is Direct Funding
“DANGER—WE MUST OURSELVES BE ITS AUTHOR”
_________________________________________________________
“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Young Men’s Lyceum, Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Indeed, Abe, indeed.
In her most vehement denial to date, Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters on Thursday that the so-called Epstein List is “as non-existent as President Trump’s healthcare plan.”
“The Epstein List is not even a concept of a list,” she added.
“Let’s say you had three things that don’t exist—the Epstein List, President Trump’s healthcare plan, and a unicorn—and you had to rank them from most existent to least existent,” she said. “It would go, unicorn, healthcare plan, Epstein List.”
Asked why she had earlier asserted that the Epstein List was on her desk, she responded, “What is this ‘desk’ you speak of?”
Nobody cares. Such a lame attempt to sow division. You should feel embarrassed that you wasted precious minutes of your sad life on such a stupid post.
No waste of time.
This is my job.
George Soros pays me to post here.
I get bonus payments when MAGA morons like you respond with insults.
Each second of your life that you waste here is a second that you’re not getting back. When you’re in your 40s, alone but for some cats, you’ll look back at the time that you spent here raving like a lunatic, and you’ll cry.
Don’t forget, nothing that you say here matters. Nobody will remember a thing that you write. You’re a total non-person, a black void, and your entire life will be forgotten because in the end you did nothing important. The only thing people here feel for you is pity at a life lost.
You are right.
Any time spent here is a total waste of time unless you are getting paid like me to post comments to irritate the MAGA mob.
Why do you waste your time here ????
George Soros loves it when I can annoy the MAGA morons like you.
Another bonus payment in my pocket.
Nobody is annoyed by your pointless posts. We sincerely grieve for your wasted life. Remember, nobody cares what you write here. Nobody will remember anything that you’ve done.
Apparently YOU care what I write here.
You waste your time reading what I write, and then care enough to waste even more time responding.
Total waste of time on your part, but I collect a nice bonus from George Soros.
you are trying over and over and over again to incite people- which is why you have to keep repeating your payment history. Over and over and over again.
Does Soros pay you for getting your message across on the first try? THAT would be worth payment.
I’m not TRYING to incite people.
I am SUCCEEDING in inciting people, as your stupid responses demonstrate.
Every time I incite a response like yours it is money in my pocket.
Being a paid DNC troll is very lucrative.
Such a waste of a life, writing snarky posts on a law professor’s blog. It’s tragic that you choose to do this instead of just about anything else. Your presence here makes zero difference in the grand scheme of things. Why not do something more meaningful?
Perhaps you should consider doing something meaningful with your life, rather than reading and responding to my pointless comments.
Don’t you have something better to do ?????
What a waste of a life when can’t find anything significant to do apart from spending your time here reading what I write .
Really quite pitiful.
Would you like all U.S. classified material delivered to your mailbox for your perusal, comrade?
Yes please.
Do you have my address????
I have plenty of storage space in my spare bathroom.
What’s your address this week? What highway underpass are you claiming now?
Spare bathroom, you mean the second slop bucket next to your cardboard box?
More chum for the MAGAts. Turley criticizes Judge Chutkan for failing to recuse for saying this: “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That statement is not a grounds for recusal, not only because it is factually true, but nothing about that statement would cause any reasonable person to question Judge Chutkan’s impartiality.
Clarence Thomas’s refusal to recuse in cases involving the insurrection–in which his wife was directly involved– DOES raise such questions–From the Brookings Institute: “Justice Clarence Thomas’s spouse sent at least 29 messages to Trump aides about overturning the 2020 election added to numerous examples of her sometimes outlandish partisan lobbying and Justice Thomas’s not recusing himself in cases involving matters about which she lobbied.”
From “Business Insider”: Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t recuse himself from a 2004 appeals case, even though the company being sued was part of the real estate empire run by Harlan Crow, the GOP mega-donor who has showered Thomas with lavish trips starting in 1997 and more recently bought Thomas’ childhood home, according to Bloomberg. Thomas previously told Bloomberg that it was OK for him to accept gifts from Harlan Crow because the GOP mega-donor did not have “business before the court.” But the 2004 appeal ties the Crow family name to a case that did come before the Supreme Court: In January 2005, the court denied the appeal petition, a $25 million copyright claim brought by an architecture firm against Trammell Crow Residential Co., a development company that’s part of the real estate empire built by Crow’s father. The Supreme Court’s decision ultimately benefitted Trammell Crow Residential.”
Turley can’t even point to a ruling by Judge Mehta to be criticized–instead, he chooses to complain about Judge Mehta’s comment about the effect of withholding grants–Judge Mehta is correct.
Turley knows that Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch all LIED about their position on stare decisis in the context of the Roe v. Wade ruling in order to get onto the bench–I have yet to hear him criticize them for that.
Brookings Institute:
__________________
Yep, can’t get anymore left-wing that that.
OOPS fat fingers
anymore left-wing then that.
Better a fat finger than a fat head, like gigi here. What a maroon. Screech harder gigi, nobody is listening to your irrelevant rantings.
You’re so pathetic gigi. Go away and get a freaking life already.
More-Chum-Anon,
Lying (by omission and outright reversion) is a very special art-form that many nominees utilize during confirmation hearings. If you want to see the most satanically masterful performance of this corruption, look at ANY hearing where Alejandro Mayorkas “testified” under oath….
Your statement about the ethical requirement of “recusals” would be better received if you were able to admit that your favorite judges were also remiss on this count, of which Chutkin and Merchan are the most egregious examples.
*. Thank you Dianna Bec! Explain more about those kinds of lies.
Only an idiot, an anonymous idiot, doesn’t know the difference between a judge giving their opinion before hearing a case and a judge’s wife having an opinion.
“Only an idiot, an anonymous idiot, doesn’t know the difference between a judge giving their opinion before hearing a case and a judge’s wife having an opinion.”
Well, it is gigi. Though, calling her an idiot may be an insult to idiots.
Not to be overly technical, but the American Founders said she’s not American and their immigration law was never licitly abrogated.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
next time gigi starts her rant with “More chum for the MAGAts,” we can just respond with “more chum from the chump herself” and move on.
(chump literally means a silly, gullible person……but in gigi’s case, we can add “who seeks out and conforms to confirmation bias from sources like HuffPost, MSNBC, CNN left-rated Business Insider and Brookings, etc.”
ATS
Virginia Thomas could not have been involved in an insurrection – there was no insurrection
The only firearms at the capital were with the capital police and FBI
There was also no ballistic shields, fireworks,frozen water bottles lasers arson or any of the myriads of tools of violence at your ordinary left wing peaceful protest
Judges Chutkans statement prejudges the case
Saying someone remains free today is not just a statement of fact it is a conclusion regarding an untried case before her
Judges are supposed to pretend atleast that they did not decide a case before it starts
Attempting to overturn an election by getting congress to refuse to certify it is not insurrection
Demanding that congress do what it has the power to do is called democracy
So you go through slot of complex details of a 2004 case and Still can not connect the case directly to Crowe much less thomas
You are saying that a friend of a Supreme Court justice is related to a person who owns stock in a party to a case ?
That is almost certainly true of all civil cases that scotus hears
Judges are not there to rule on the alleged effects of anything
That is literally the core of turleys post, the role of the Judiciary and the rule of law
Judges are there to assess the constitutionality and legality of the case before them
Consideration of the effects of a law are the domain of congress
You can not lie about stare Decisis
It is a guide
A weight on the scale
It is not absolute
Dear Prof Turley,
If anybody is entitled to a few rhetorical flourishes, it’s the SCOTUS. They practically have a literary license to expound upon the great issues of the day.
There has been some outstanding oratory from that august body down through the ages. .. this crowd not so much.
Justice Brown Jackson’s lonely dissent over ‘universal injunctions’, though appropriate, lacked the necessary intellectual rigor to overcome the captured forces of a creeping ‘imperial Judiciary’. Long precedent, and the U.S. constitution, provides the SCOTUS – if not lower Federal Judges – unique opportunity to check the over-reaching powers of a centralized ‘imperial Executive’. Somebody has to do it. .. lord knows, Congress has completely abandoned their responsibilities!
We suspect SCOTUS will get another chance to undermine the authority of lower Federal Judges wrt ‘birthright citizenship’ and the 14th amendment. .. justice divided cannot stand.
All persons born in the United State, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are U.S. citizens.
*We further assess the Epstein files, like Hunter Biden’s laptop, has all the classic hallmarks of Russian disinformation. .. and will never see the light of day.
If anybody is entitled to a few rhetorical flourishes, it’s the SCOTUS.
Not when they show repeatedly that they are fundamentally unaware of what a judge is, or what a court of law is. Then they open themselves up to legitimate criticism. Furthermore, CJ Roberts should be speaking on this topic, as he is the captain of the team. He shouldn’t be leaving it solely to an associate justice like Barret, as appropriate as her rejoinder was.
No law, or piece of paper, can hold the iron, old man. It must come from men’s heart. .. eloquently expressed through rational and authoritative argument.
*They say MAGA is in full revolt over the missing Epstein files, but I’m not so sure.. . do you know where the Epsten files are, or not?
They may not be happy, but full revolt… Nope!!
Next lie
It’s all they have. The leftists have taken a pounding lately on basically every front, so they’re desperate to reach for anything.
No law, or piece of paper, can hold the iron, old man.
Would you kindly explain what you believe that has to do with the US Supreme Court, or its appropriate function under the US Constitution?
Concerning the highest court in the land, what you insipidly call “rhetorical flourish” is actually the practice of promoting multiple logical fallacies:
Argumentum ad populam, is chief among so many other of Jackson’s errors and misapprehensions, the details of which include special pleadings for ignorance, nuaseam, numeram, verecundiam, lazarum….
Truly, this DEI-hire, who doesn’t know what a woman is, doesn’t know what a SCOTUS judge is, nor the reasoning for “opinion,” which is understanding of the law applied, not a soapbox for her emotions.
I’m taking notes, Dianna Bec con fuego!
Dianne, I wish I knew how to say I love your comment in Latin.
Puelarum decus Celadus
http://archive.org/stream/inscriptionespar42zang#page/522/mode/2up
See item 4289
from Ancient Graffiti on the walls of Pompeii
* Celadus is the glory of girls
😉
The notion of an “imperial Executive” was already addressed by the Constitution, i.e., ‘an impeachment a day keeps the King away.’ In other words, the Constitution places no limit on the impeachment power. It can be exercised daily if so desired! And if the term ‘imperial Executive’ is not mere propagandistic hyperbole, but real and palpably dangerous for all to see, one of those ‘daily’ impeachment proceedings is ‘bound to stick.’ Or, one of those daily impeachments will ultimately condition the ‘imperial Executive’ to alter his kingly course.
The current president has complied with every unconstitutional court order unlike previous communist occupants of the office.
In fact, the singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional and must have been held as such from inception.
The members of the judicial branch who have clearly failed their sworn-oath duty to support the Constitution must be impeached and convicted with extreme prejudice for the sake of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and America.
An idiot said, Justice Jackson’s lonely dissent over ‘universal injunctions’ though appropriate….” Well I guess you disagree with Justice Kagan who stated in an interview that it is absurd for a district judge has the right to apply an injunction for the entire nation. Granted the hack voted against her own opinion, but the cat was already out of the bag. Common sense tells us that over 600 district judges in 94 districts DON’T have the power to stop the president, and in some of these recent cases even Congress and the president, from actually being the chief executive.
But hey, you do you.
(1) Yikes! Did Jackson really say that???!!!
(2) I too had winced at what Mehta added to his ruling, as JT quotes: “Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence. But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.”
He could have simply stated, “Plaintiffs’ arguments are acknowledged. But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.”
And even that is walkin’ the line.
Lin – agreed. Judge Mehta’s “shameful” rhetoric was way beyond the pale, and only brought shame on himself.
Lin, this is the fruits of legal critical theory and the end of objectivity in law schools, as well as J schools and med schools. Jurists like Jackson were taught that their feelings and their ideas of justice are what controls them, not the law, precedent or even the Constitution. They truly believe it is their duty to not be bound by an old piece of paper. It is quite frightening.
The Democratic Party has indeed, a big tent.
It includes the diminishing old guard blue dog types who are being trampled upon by culturally appropriate Neo-Democrats, progressives, socialists, and even some bald faced communists.
It will be interesting to see if they will ever disavow Antifa, BLM and now, the new jihadism rearing an ugly head.
The Democratic Party can no longer successfully disobey or disavow these groups. They have fostered them for far too long; made excuses for them, funded them, and legally supported them. To what end?
Jackson is just one of their tools. A hallmark of this party is the ‘big feelings’ crap we are being forced to make space for — because we’re horrible if we don’t.
Incorporate I feel like and full stop when writing. Thanks
They never disavow anything their side does. The fake leader of the DNC just said that what Mamdani believes just proves they have a big tent. Now imagine if it is 1980 and Reagan said, “hey, we welcome David Duke, we have a big tent”.
The Politicians in Black Robes have been a problem since the first Court. Our constituion is vague on what the Court is supposed to be doing. We know from the arguments penned and the later ratifying documentsw what was expected. This is not what we got.
First and foremost the court has no business in State affairs. They almost got that in Dobbs but then immediately followed with some sort of first tier and second tier ‘rights’. The 14th Amendment was clearly understood until Black decided to change it.
Jackson is of the school of thought the 14th amendment is tne new constitution. This is akin to a belief in christianity without understanding the hebrew heritage from which Jesus came.
If a Justice is to interpret the constitutionality of something, they should be looking at the ratifying documents and papers of the day to understand what it was to have meant. Anything else is politics.
Regretfully, the politicians in black robes often seek a result and how to twist the law to reach that result. this is the job of an attorney, not a justice.
Ultimately we get justices that will play the game of twister to support the governmetn position.
Apparently unbiased arbiters of Fact and Law is a thing of the past??????????? So much for the Judicial Oath.
In her confirmation hearing, she said she didn’t know what a woman was because she lacks biology expertise.
She should now admit she doesn’t know what a judge is because she lacks legal expertise.
“I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do.”
The Founders created a system that is “a government of laws, not of men” — with the law of the land being the Constitution.
Jackson rejects that system of limited government, jettisons the Constitution — and replaces the Founders’ wisdom with a government of men, which in reality means: a government of her feelings.
She is paid by the taxpayers to do a job. She is a public servant, not a private political pontificator. Her job is to be an impartial judge and rule according to the law, not to give us her papal opinions.
With that said, a couple nit-picks:
Kagan joined in the reversal of Murphy’s conflicting order and wrote the new order “clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.”
That was said by Sotomayor, not Kagan. As you noted, Kagan was with the majority on that order.
Opinions must remain “opportunities” to do simple justice, not a supreme editorial.
No, not simple justice, but an impartial application of law. It is a court of law, not a court of justice. Such concerns are left to the political branches. The opportunity for justice is confined to discretionary decisions, which are more numerous for a trial court while conducting a trial, but few and far between at the Supreme Court level. Their main job is impartially interpreting and applying the law.
In Other News: “AI Powered Call Center Switches Chatbot’s Voice to ‘Difficult to understand foreign accent’ to Reassure Customers.”
~+~
After replacing all their human customer service agants with AI powered chatbots, a large corporation discovered most customers could not relate to the awkward, robotic sounding voices. Software engineers suspected the chatbots were alienating customers who had become accustomed to the human workers they outsourced to years ago, so they changed the bot’s voice to have a “strange, difficult to understand foreign accent” which was immediately embraced by callers.
One customer commented, “I do not like the idea of being disrespected by company who values me so little they won’t even provide me with a real person to address my issue, I felt better knowing that my complex IRS tax return filing is being handled by someone either in Pakistan, or Bangladesh named Johnny.”
We Object! Everyone understood and understands US!
—from R2D2 and A2D2
*. Yep, that what happened to the military. Everyone kept saying, “What?”.
@Darren
😂😂
Only in MAGA loony land is “Trump must follow the law.” is a radical idea.
I take it that you didn’t even read the article at all, and just are going with your feelz now?
Radical-FEELZ-Anony:
What does MAGA have to do with DEI-LOONY-Jackson? If she can’t interpret the Constitution, how can she follow the law herself?
Does she even know the law? By her own opinions, it appears not.
He has. The DNC sure hasn’t.
Nobody wants to know how Jackson “FEELS,” and “her job” as she immaturely calls it, is not to opine on social issues. She doesn’t understand “her job,” and her jejune pomposity concerning it is more irritating than a Biff Tannen character. In the real world, these two comments are enough to end her candidacy…. Barf.
*. Absolutely, and what about mood swings?
The extreme-left is in perpetual PMS. Surely, we’ve all noticed that emotional-politics coincide with women [now] running everything, from Universities to hero-movies. Political Effective Disorder.
PED …
This is the product of Affirmative Action. The government went full speed ahead with it for 50 years? The government is AA.
What’s the origin of AA, research? Who spawned that idea?
Interesting, but I actually wrote PAD (Political AFFECTIVE Disorder), facetiously; the program hijacked/switched my word, causing not only a different acronym, but quite a different meaning. I wonder if there isn’t some AI lurking within the reply function, deliberately muddying the discourse….
Speaking of Affirmative Action, it appears that WOMEN have benefited most from this programming. It appears that despite LBJ ushering in Civil Rights, Nixon pushed it into the government, but the effort was bipartisan….
Jackson is the bright light that gave is “Martians from another planet” as well as “wait for it”. It is just the next step in the dumbing down of the nation. Get rid of advanced classes, fight to give able-bodied people free money for not working, pay off student loans, free buses, free phones, government stores, no bail, Globalize the Intifada, attack your own universities and fight to keep violent illegal men in the country.
You’re absolutely correct. All I want is the court to call balls and strikes and concisely explain why the ball was a ball (high and outside or low and inside). Gratuitous pontification on politics is objectionable.