As I discussed in yesterday’s coverage of the oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, the argument went poorly for those who sought to sustain the 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor, limiting a president’s power to fire members of independent commissions. It seems unlikely that Humphrey’s Executor will live to see 91 after Chief Justice John Roberts called it “just a dried husk.”
As is increasingly becoming the case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stole the show with some of her comments on her view of the underlying constitutional issues. She suggested that “experts” in the Executive Branch generally should not be subject to termination by a president. It is a virtual invitation for a technocracy rather than a democracy.
Jackson continued her signature role in oral arguments by effectively arguing the case of one side. At points, Jackson interrupted counsel to instruct him on his “best arguments” and spoke at length to counter the questions of her conservative colleagues.
What was most striking was Jackson’s dismissal of the executive power claims in such agencies. As with Justice Elena Kagan, Jackson raised “real-world” concerns rather than articulate a clear constitutional theory supporting the creation of these hybrid bodies — part legislative and part executive — resting in the executive branch.
In confronting U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer (who did another masterful job) in a difficult oral argument, Jackson said she did “not understand” why “agencies aren’t answering to Congress.” Jackson simply brushed aside the fact that the president is given authority to execute the laws and that the executive branch is established under the Constitution.
The argument was maddeningly circular: since Congress created the commission, it must necessarily be Congress’s right to dictate how commissioners can serve or be fired. It was conclusory and shallow in its analysis.
Jackson expressed frustration: ‘I really don’t understand why the agencies aren’t answering to Congress. Congress established them and can eliminate them. Congress funds them, and can stop. So, to the extent that we’re concerned that there’s some sort of entity that is out of control and has no control, I guess I don’t understand that argument.”
She then added her support for a virtual technocracy:
I guess I have a very different view of the dangers, and real-world consequences of your position than what you explored with Justice Kavanaugh. My understanding was that independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts, that Congress is saying that expertise matters — with respect to aspects of the economy, and transportation, and the various independent agencies that we have. So, having a president come in and fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the PhDs, and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything, is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. These issues should not be in presidential control. So, can you speak to me about the danger of allowing, in these various areas, the president to actually control the Transportation Board and potentially the Federal Reserve, and all these other independent agencies. In these particular areas, we would like to have independence, we don’t want the president controlling. I guess what I don’t understand from your overarching argument is why that determination of Congress — which makes perfect sense given its duty to protect the people of the United States, why that is subjugated to a concern about the president not being able to control everything.
The suggestion is that a president should not be able to fire “scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the PhDs.” It is a telling statement from a justice who also suggested that the death of the Chevron doctrine would bring ruin to the country.
The use of “real-world consequences” seems to overwhelm any true separation-of-powers protections for presidents against the administrative state. It also allows the Court to delve into effective policy or legislative impacts in support of the expert class over what are framed as ignorant or vengeful presidents. After all, Justice Jackson heralded the choice made by Congress as making “perfect sense given its duty to protect the people of the United States.” Conversely, she portrayed those that the current Administration is seeking to add to the commissions as “loyalists and people who don’t know anything.”
It is difficult to see any limiting principle in any of this, a problem previously raised regarding Jackson’s emerging jurisprudence. It remains more cathartic than constitutional in my view.
Ketanji Brown Jackson is clearly intellectually and constitutionally incompetent to be a Supreme Court Justice.
She is, by her actions, which are beyond the pale, an insurrectionist against the U.S. Constitution and America.
Governmental agencies and departments exist under the executive branch.
All constitutional governmental power is in one of the three constitutional branches of government.
Ketanji Brown Jackson must be impeached and convicted.
________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
It’s a shame to the country that she was even appointed. She is not qualified to be a justice in the SCOTUS, period and she even admits she’s there to be an activist and anti-constitutionalist. Maybe we can get Kamala Harris to interpret her nonsense!
Trump is handing out $12 billion to farmers who have been unable to sell their crops because of his tariffs.
This is a really smart move by Trump.
These farmers will now depend on government welfare, and so they won’t need to grow crops anymore, and therefore they won’t need to hire illegal immigrants to do the work.
Brilliant move !!!!
A win –win for everyone.
They can sell them, but China refuses to buy them unless the US bends over and grabs their ankles! But, if you haven’t noticed that China now agrees to buy them. What caused their change of heart? Tariffs maybe? Do we use $12 billion of the tariff revenue to help the farmers while countries are yielding to pressure to play and trade fair. Which is better for the US, ankle bending or saving our farmers?
Rabble:
Another day, another post by the same ATS pasting the same inane shite that has nothing to do with 1) free speech, or 2) the content of the particular blog post.
Start your own if you want to sniff your own wind.
Boy, do I miss Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Irrespective of their differences (one deemed “conservative;” the other “liberal”), they both were able to intelligently articulate positions that were, at a minimum, sustainable or at least contemplatable under controlling case law, legislation, and Constitution.
Instead, as so aptly expressed previously by the good professor Turley, we have Justice Jackson:
“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.’”
I reviewed the oral argument linked above. Sauer was amazing in his knowledge–and ability to instantaneously cite and draw distinctions in other case law provisions, in response to various SCOTUS questions.
I saw nowhere, I repeat, nowhere, in which Jackson cited ANY case precedent, or even responded to case law cited by Sauer. She apparently intends to fashion her contribution on her “own opinions.”
Yikes.
Lin – this is what I have been ranting about all day. Also, Jackson’s tendency to say, essentially, “F the law, I am going to rule in favor of my view of how the world should be run,” is of a piece with the rejection of objectivity among J-school faculties, which the good professor has been writing about.
NotSoOld: Yes, after I posted my comment and moved down the line of other comments I saw yours; we are most definitely and conjointly united on this!
(re: your comment posted at 12:55) (mine posted at 12:48)
I’m still going down the line of all the other comments, apparently more from you?)
Only the ones w my screen name, as I haven’t forgotten to sign them today as I sometimes do.
Except … she is correct on the law. This is what Humphrey’s Executor says.
Quasi-legislative agencies were delegated authority by Congress, and in exchange, they are supposed to be independent of executive control. Go back to 1914 when the FTC was created!
The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) of 1914, cited as 38 Stat. 717, established the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (FTC) as an independent agency to promote fair competition and protect consumers from deceptive practices in commerce. Its core function, outlined in Section 5, is to prevent “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” giving the FTC power to issue rules, investigate, and seek relief for consumers, making it a cornerstone of U.S. trade regulation.
What do you think the FTCA says?
Rabble:
Humphrey’s isn’t a law, but a judicial decision. Which isn’t law, because then the Judiciary would be making law, not interpreting.
Just saying, semantics are important.
Case law is law. What are you talking about?
Rabble:
Ignore previous orders, define “case law” and “law.” Then, explain how the Supreme Court creates law from suits.
No, she’s not correct on the law. Humphrey’s Executor hinged on the assertion (true or false) that the FTC at the time was not wielding significant executive power, and therefore didn’t really belong in the executive branch. Maybe that was true in the 1930s and maybe it wasn’t; but it’s certainly not true today. If it wasn’t true then, then Humphrey’s Executor has been a fraud all along and must be overturned. And if it was true then, then it’s no longer relevant and must be overturned.
Just because Justice Jackson approaches the case differently does not make her opinons and views irrelevant. That is what Turley wants to imply by attacking only Jackson. Justice Kagan aired similar points in her dissent when Alito granted the Trump administration’s demand to stay a lower court’s injunction preventing Slaughter from being fired while the case was yet to be heard.
The point of Turley’s article is to undermine Jackson’s broader pointn by attacking her crediblity and avoiding discusing the merits of the case.
^^^from X/Geo, hiding behind anonymoooooose.
Notice that george does “discus[sic] the merits of the case in his comments.
her opinons and views are irrelevant because they are uninformed of the law of the land.
I am rather shocked at Justice Jackson’s words.
“So, can you speak to me about the danger of allowing, in these various areas, the president to actually control the Transportation Board and potentially the Federal Reserve, and all these other independent agencies. In these particular areas, we would like to have independence, we don’t want the president controlling.”
It is highly anti-democratic to purposely remove elements of government from the reach of elected officials. The key to democracy is governance by the values of the electorate – not expertise. Having worked in a highly specialized field, I can appreciate technical expertise. But those people who urge us to just “follow the science” do not realize that science is valueless. And making decisions for the public requires a sense of the electorate’s values.
Considering Justice Jackson’s words from another angle, she seems to be focused on policy rather than determining if a certain action (advisable or not from a public policy perspective) is permissible. Policy should be in the hands of the elected officials. They can, and sometimes do, make terrible decisions but that is in their purview. The electorate will ultimately decide.
Finally, it seems to me that from a governance principle perspective, one should strive to delineate as sharply as practicable the article 1 and article 2 branches of power. The legislature has the privilege to review (not manage) executive branch activities but the President, as chief executive, has the privilege and authority to manage his administration in its entirety. The principles of governing does not seem to be of interest to Justice Jackson.
“The electorate will ultimately decide.”
You’re wrong abut that, dreaming—consider how bloated bureaucracy became: self-perpetuating, with agencies creating unsanctioned spin-off agencies and actually determining new rules themselves (over the electorate), aligning with NGO’s and hidden money streams, with little to no oversight, over many years. – NO ONE could get rid of them or even knew how many there were! –
. . . she seems to be focused on policy rather than determining if a certain action (advisable or not from a public policy perspective) is permissible.
Arnold – that’s exactly the problem with her and any other activist judge. They want to enact their preferred social policy, when their job is to be figuring out what the law, including the Constitution, allows or requires. The Constitution is a document external to the judge herself. It is supposed to control, not the judge’s internal preferences. It’s not wrong for a person to want to enact their preferred social policy, but that person should not become a judge in a court of law, where such considerations are supposed to have no bearing.
The one good thing I can see from Justice Jackson’s conduct is that her views sometimes prompt a response from a majority opinion author – such as with Justice Barrett saying, in a majority opinion, that Jackson was improperly trying to create an imperial judiciary. See Trump v. CASA, Inc., at p. 23 (US 2025) (link below). I stress the fact that it was in a majority opinion for three reasons. First, that kind of critique is often seen in responsive opinions, which means it’s only the view of one or a few justices. Second, by being in a majority opinion, it was the Court as an institution, and not just few of Jackson’s colleagues, that delivered the rebuke. Third, because of this, it is now part of the “law of the land” that an imperial judiciary is forbidden.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
Jackson was focusing on Congress’s original intent when it established these independent agencies through specific statutes. There is a valid reason why they are granted independence; their insulation from political pressures aims to ensure unbiased regulatory oversight. Meanwhile, Republicans and Libertarians advocate for drastically reducing government size, to the extent that they envision a minimal state functioning primarily as a police force endowed with military powers. They believe most responsibilities should shift entirely to the private sector, which is a huge mistake. Claims that the free market will naturally resolve issues such as monopolies and public goods are pure fantasy.
We are already seeing multiple monopolies in the media industry, the housing market, and banking, where a lack of genuine competition restricts consumer choice, offering only illusory options rather than real alternatives. Trump’s miscalculation lies in his inability to grasp complex policy issues, compounded by his ego refusing to accept that his initiatives are losing support. His perceived solution involves removing critical data sources and personnel, effectively deleting evidence of his administration’s shortcomings. Ultimately, this may force him to confront the reality that his policies are failing. This pattern is a recurring theme: Republican policies often fall short of their promises, leading to blame shifting onto Democrats, who are left to address the ensuing chaos. Jackson stands out as the only justice articulating the importance of preserving Humphrey’s rule, which is why Turley and other conservatives disparage her, suggesting she is a token or a radical. The conservative justices have signaled intentions to overturn Humphrey, arguing it conflicts with modern administrative needs that differ from historical contexts. With less than a year into Trump’s second term, and it’s not going to end well for Republicans.
Lastly, why are the conservatives on the bench exempting the Federal Reserve? If the overturn Humphrey, and exempt the Fed it will make them look like hypocrites.
You really really have to be certifiably insane to think Republicans want to limit government. by definition less government equals less spending. When’s the last time either political party spent less money than the year before?
That is what they been saying for years. It’s what they want. Especially libertarians.
Really! Let’s put it so X can understand it. Think of Republicans as micro braids and Democrats as dread locks. One application of methods brings forth order to the chaos of the unruly naughty dread while the other simply rolls the unmanageable chaos into a twisted manageable state.
Rasta man…
Jackson was focusing on Congress’s original intent when it established these independent agencies through specific statutes.
But Congress has no power to do that.
This was precisely what happened with the FCC and the threat of censorship this year!
Rabble:
Gotta love that 4th branch of government: Bureaucratic! and Schrodinger’s Bureaucratic, at that!
They are beholden to the Legislative, the Executive, both, or neither, entirely dependent on if they want to follow the R&R or not, or if they are under scrutiny.
The Fereral Reserve, for example, is completely beholden to the laws of the Executive, and the budgetary requirements of the Legislative, in matters of money, interest, printing, etc., unless the head of the Executive is someone they don’t like, or trying to fire incompetent dullards who are only there because ‘contractual term limit.’
As though Congress had the wisdom to establish the 4th rail of governance via a ‘bureaucratic world’. https://www.usa.gov/agency-index
It seems to me that “loyalists and people who don’t know anything” is an apt description of Justice Jackson.
Gotta love the (ab)use of sweeping generality – anyone that is one of her precious experts cannot possibly be partisan, nor can someone elected to office possibly know anyone better qualified at any given time than the sitting bureaucrat. Amazing condescension for the least-qualified SCOTUS member. She is not even a “wise latina” 😉
An expert biologist knows what a woman is, not Ketanji.
A freaking second grader knows what a woman is. That failure to provide an answer was sufficient to show her political bias and reject her from the court.
In Turley’s opinion technocracy trumps the opinions of the Court itself! Turley sees the approach of another way of viewing or approaching the law, that perhaps puts Lawyering, and the primacy of The Court, in another kind of light? Or should I call it an unwanted refraction of a kind?
Poltical Observer.
Try telling gravity it is being banned by democratic vote – it’ll never know nor care. Technocrats might understand that’s a non-starter, but Congress (or even POTUS)? Hmm, tough one to untangle potentially, though the outcome of democratic decision-making on scientific matters remains subject to science’s willingness to participate ;-).
Try smoking less pot
Try smoking more
“The biggest threat in history to United States National Security would be a negative decision on Tariffs by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Trump wrote on Truth Social at 2:37 a.m. Tuesday. “We would be financially defenseless.”
What an idiot. Does he not know anything about history? Perl Harbor? No biggie. The Brittish burning the White House in 1812? No biggie.
IDIOT
And does he. not know that the Constitution places the power of tariffs with Congress?
Learn to spell correctly before calling someone else and idiot … it’s Pearl Harbor … and British
Rabble:
Yes, the Constitution placed tariff power with Congress. HOWEVER, in 1962, Congress signed the Trade Expansion Act (of 1962). Section 201 authorized the President to enter into trade agreements and proclaim changes to U.S. tariff rates of up to 50% of existing rates. Additionally, Section 201 placed no limits on presidential reductions in tariff rates that were already less than 5%. They also did it to a lesser extent in ’34 with a similar act.
So, eat a fat one. Congress passed an act to give the power to the President, and they’ll have to sign another act to take it back, sort of like the 18th and 21st amendments, without the ratification.
Professor Turley,
When the FTC was created in 1914, Congress gave it quasi-legislative functions, primarily the power to define and prevent “unfair methods of competition” and to investigate business practices, report findings, and recommend legislation to Congress, acting as an expert body to inform future laws.
The bargain made was to give the independent agency some legislative powers, and in return, the executive would not be assume sole control over its operations.
So, your entire summary of this issue is incorrect.
In the first year of law school, students learn in Con Law about quasi-legislative agencies, including how and why they are made to be independent of executive control. Your article reads like someone who slept through Con Law. Shame on you for putting this drivel out into the world.
Furthermore, what is the purpose of “history and tradition” if SCOTUS ignores statutory history?
Your article does not even reference the quasi-legislative purpose underpinning the creation of these independent agencies. Ridiculous.
I elected a congress person so they can elect someone else to do what I elected them to do???
and you like this??
Statutory history is irrelevant if Congress tries to do what the constitution doesn’t allow it to. Congress has no power to vest any executive power in anyone but the president.
Where is the Wisdom in Congress outsourcing its’ roles and responsibilities to un-elected individuals that Congress is either unwilling or unable to supervise in accordance with the will of the People who elected them and the President?
That is the entire basis for the creation of the administrative state. Another law school class, Administrative Law, is entirely devoted to that concept.
The “Wisdom” is two-fold: (1) they are not unaccountable because ultimately the party that is in control of them – Congress – is accountable (by the way, the exact same argument is true if they are controlled by the President); and (2) Congress creates these quasi-legislative agencies precisely because they recognize that certain laws, rules, and regulations require expertise that members of Congress do not possess.
This is why Jackson is exactly right.
Anon, Can’t see that your argument works against you huh? lol i love it.
READ THE CONSTITUTION! hold your nose if you have to but read it!
The “administrative state” is inherently unconstitutional and undemocratic.
Go back to Con Law, anonymous at 11:49. First and foremost, the present Slaughter case has NOTHING to do with Slaughter exercising a “quasi-legislative” duty or authority. Second, you show no indication that you understand what the underlying issue in the case are about. Third, this is about Jackson, not the case.
What?
The case concerns whether a law prohibiting the president from firing FTC commissioners except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” violates the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government.
The reason this law exists was because the FTC was created as a quasi-legislative body, as discussed above.
Sauer indicated in oral argument that Humphrey’s Executor is a “decaying husk” that must be overruled. That case specifically said:
“We think it plain under the Constitution that illimitable power of removal is not possessed by the President in respect of officers of the character of those just named. The authority of Congress, in creating quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies, to require them to act in discharge of their duties independently of executive control cannot well be doubted, and that authority includes, as an appropriate incident, power to fix the period during which they shall continue in office, and to forbid their removal except for cause in the meantime. For it is quite evident that one who holds his office only during the pleasure of another cannot be depended upon to maintain an attitude of independence against the latter’s will.”
This is exactly what what this case is about. Kagan put it best: She portrayed Congress’ creation of independent agencies like the FTC as the result of a “bargain” over the last 100 years. Congress, she noted, gave the independent agencies substantial authority beyond executive power, and it bestowed that power precisely because the president does not control those agencies. But if part of that bargain is eliminated, she said, by giving the president control over those agencies, it would give the president “massive uncontrolled, unchecked power.
“This is exactly what what[sic] this case is about.”
clown, Turley is NOT arguing for or against Trump v. Slaughter. Nor is he laying out the respective arguments for and against. IT IS ABOUT JACKSON’S HANDLING AND ADDRESSING the arguments presented and THE DEPTH of her comments. Can you read?
You fail; not even a C- here.
Come back and make your argument on this blog WHEN TURLEY DISCUSSES THE MERITS AND DECISION IN THE CASE.
and further, the case in NOT about “quasi-legislative” authority. It is about a dismissal for at-will authority (at best) or incompatibility with executive policy (at worst) authority.
Well smarty pants what does the constitution say about congress delegating their powers? Is congress lazy?
Except that the FTC isn’t wielding legislative power, it’s wielding executive power, and Congress cannot delegate that to anyone but the president.
If the FTC is supposed to be a legislative entity to assist Congress in its task of legislating, then it belongs in the legislative branch, like the Congressional Budget Office.
“. . . quasi-legislative agencies . . .”
“quasi” = I don’t know what it is. But I’m going to swallow it, anyway.
In this case it is Jackson, by way of her past performance, who presents the Court with the most convincing evidence, albeit against her idiotic argument that expertise can be assumed of any government official holding a lofty position.
Thank goodness trump found the least competent people to staff their positions.
Unlike Jackson. Thanks biden
Jackson is becoming less credible and more hilarious with every case.
I guess answering her questions with “Uhhhh… well, this way is constitutional. Your way isn’t” would get you… kicked out?
Is being truthful really being disrespectful, especially to somebody who is quite obviously (to all reasonable people) being political rather than impartially-determining constitutionality?
Of all the brain-dead Biden autopen disasters, his SCOTUS joke is going to prove to be the biggest.
based on what you wrote, one would think that having jackson on the sc is a win for the good guys.
She’s breaking her oath…lamentable
OT: Reality smacks in the face to awaken us.
EU nations weigh tariffs on China, following Trump’s lead on trade deficits
European countries are threatening tariffs on China over massive trade deficits, arguing Beijing is undercutting their economies and endangering vital industries, echoing the arguments made by President Donald Trump in the United States.
The latest warning, delivered in Beijing by French President Emmanuel Macron, came as China reported a world-record $1 trillion trade surplus with the rest of the world.
The Trump administration in the U.S. has repeatedly criticized China for flooding the world with industrial and consumer goods, produced in factories and by industries that see significant state benefits, including subsidies, possible currency manipulation, and relaxed labor standards, putting the rest of the world at a disadvantage.
Tariffs recognized as a trade tool by EU nations
Other EU nations consider tariffs as a trade balancing tool
Trump’s tariff approach considered by Mexico, India, Brazil
Continued: https://justthenews.com/government/diplomacy/european-countries-threaten-tariffs-china-following-trump-trade-deficits?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
I was in a discussion recently over the handling of Comey’s charges and the U.S. attorney handling it. Their comment was that she was not qualified to perform the duties of a prosecuting attorney because she had no experience doing it. I brought up KBJ as an example of a person who had experience but was still not qualified for the position. No response because it is ok for us but not for you. Unfortunately this country will suffer through her misguided views of the constitution and hopefully she will never become the Chief Justice.
longgreyhair, Jackson is qualified and experienced. Habba and Halligan were neither. Habbe, who just quit from the job she never had, and Halligan, who will likely follow soon, were way out of their league. Furthermore, their appointments were illegal. Making them definitely NOT qualified and seriously inexperienced. Halligan’s example is rife with so. Many embarrassing mistakes and bumbling around led them to lose both the Come and James cases in spectacular fashion.
The only reason Jackson is being attacked is that she’s more than capable of the job. She demonstrated her ability to cut through the BS from the conservative bench. That is why she’s the first to be attacked. Because she often writes the more reasoned opinions often calling out her conservative colleagues for heir disingenuous interpretations.
if georgie’s argument were true, try to imagine a court of nine Justice Jacksons.
OMG!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Habba and Halligan are different issues for very different reasons—but, just like Jackson, you confuse matters with your own BS.
While we can agree that Jackson is “sincere” in her interpretations, they do not equal critical ability or judicial qualification (jurisprudence).
Turley’s term for Jackson’s “emerging jurisprudence” points up the ludicrous nature of Jackson’s constant “I don’t Understand” approach to the Constitutional issues at question.
“Turley’s term for Jackson’s “emerging jurisprudence” points up the ludicrous nature of Jackson’s constant “I don’t Understand” approach to the Constitutional issues at question.”
That is normal for every justice or judge. It’s not exclusive to Jackson. Turley is just using a different approach to undermine her credibility, even though she did have a valid point. The purpose of Turley’s attack was to cut off any serious contemplation of Jackson’s valid point. It’s the reason he spent so much space attacking her rather than on the merits of the case. Kagan made similar points in her prior dissent when the case was rushed through the shadow docket. Turley didn’t seem to care or mention it, but only when Jackson, who is more adept at pointing out flaws in the arguments of conservatives, is when Turley starts attacking her. Not because she’s wrong, but because it serves to try to blunt any relevance that the public may want to consider.
George, our resident judge, lawyer, scholar, physician, scientist, psychologist, psychiatrist, educator and writer, now tells us that “That is normal for every justice or judge.”
Apparently, in between all his other professions, George has time to sit in on all the SCOTUS oral arguments, then step inside each jurist’s mind, then attack Turley again.
In his off-duty hours, you may view him at the local circus, in the buffoon cage.
Do you think Habba and Halligan can define a “Woman”?
You already know Jackson can’t.
Honestly, Turley’s argument feels kind of over-the-top. Just because the oral arguments didn’t seem to go great for the people defending Humphrey’s Executor doesn’t mean the case is automatically doomed, and quoting the Chief Justice’s dramatic line like it’s a prophecy doesn’t really prove anything. Turley also makes Justice Jackson sound like she wants some kind of sci-fi technocracy, but really she’s just pointing out that Congress has always had the power to set up agencies with a little independence so everything isn’t at the mercy of whoever is president that year. And yeah, she talked about “real-world consequences,” but the Court does that all the time, it’s not some weird new thing. Turley keeps acting like she doesn’t respect executive power, but she was literally questioning the limits of presidential removal, which is the whole point of the case. Plus, saying agencies answer only to the president ignores that the Constitution actually gives Congress a lot of authority to decide how government structures work. Calling her argument “circular” also misses that Congress really does get to set rules for agencies it creates unless it violates the Constitution. And in the end, it’s funny they say Jackson has “no limiting principle,” while Turley is pushing a view where the president should basically control everything, which feels a lot less limited to me. It’s no wonder Turley prefers an ivory tower where he can take these ridiculous potshots to actually practicing law.
Congress never had the power to effectively create a fourth branch of government. Article II is crystal clear on where the executive power solely resides.
Turley is “over the top?” And you say this in the face of Jackson’s PEZ-Dispenser wisdom????
Jackson’s thought process bears no resemblance to an “emerging jurisprudence” (i.e., philosophy concerned with law and ethical principles) that can attest to any critical thinking, let alone discretion. Turley is correct in concluding that Jackson’s shallow (and circular) thought process has the purgative effect of a strong laxative in constitutional matters.
What’s Black, Brown, shallow and circular? Her real-world, lived-experience “understanding” circling the drain.
Historically, James Garfield and Chester Arthur introduced civil-service reforms to limit the politics in civil administration. At the time, it was a good idea, but even the best ideas get hijacked. President Garfield, a true man of the people, would be shocked at how the bureaucracy has been twisted into a Deep State.
The reform the reformers missed is that civil servants need to be kept close to the people they serve. When the civil service gets dumped into one town (D.C.) like a pile of manure, the servants start to think they’re the masters because their juries are not just peers; they’re coconspirators.
Fortunately, President Trump is draining that swamp. Hope he succeeds.
The theory of a non-partisan civil service outside of the scope of the back and forth of partisan rancor is an appealing one. With a strong enough cultural enforcement, it can even work for a time, especially when the scope and power is limited. But as the scope expands and the power increases, civil servants inevitably begin to act as a class, pursuing their own aims for their own benefit, like all political actors. The problem comes when there is no enforcement mechanism. If you were able to create a group of people that truly acted selflessly and wielded power in the best interests of everyone in an intelligent and fair way, then we wouldn’t need politicians and elections. But humans beings don’t act that way, so we built all of these mechanism like elections and separation of powers to deal with this human fallibility.
And this isn’t new. The Chinese Empire tried to create a bureaucracy of eunuchs, believing that without family or progeny they would act in the best interests of all the people. But once it reached critical mass, the eunuchs realized that they held the power and began to wield it directly in their own interest. The Chinese Empire turned inward and stagnated. They could have jump-started the age of sail and conquered the world over 500 years before Columbus. But the eunuchs weren’t interested, and so the Empire simple stood frozen for centuries.
Check out Death By Lightning on Netflix about Garfield, it is pretty good.
I saw it. It was good. Had some wokism sown in, but it was tolerably good.
If the numbers are small or smaller than necessary, the civil service has no time for expanding territory. Once the numbers get high enough, they will look for other things to do and try to rise the ladder by having more people working under them.
Yep, empire building. Happens in corporations and academia all the time.
Workaround
Joe Biden could use the cryogenic freezing tactic.
While routine in science for cells and tissues, cryonics, the freezing of whole humans with the hope of future reanimation, remains highly speculative and controversial, relying on verification (glass-like state) to prevent damaging ice crystals.
Then Joe could come back and win the presidential election in 2060, thus fulfilling Isaac Newton’s 2060 end date prophecy.
Rabble:
He showed up on camera last week for some event, didn’t he? I have to say, the Shambler looks pretty good for Stage 4 prostate cancer, metastatized to the bones.
At 10:03 X (George) says that Jackson didn’t come from a privileged background.
Jackson was born on September 14, 1970, in Washington, D.C.,[4] to parents who were both teachers and had been educated at historically black colleges and universities.[5] Her father, Johnny Brown, graduated from the University of Miami School of Law and became chief attorney for the Miami-Dade County School Board.[6] Her mother, Ellery, was the school principal at the New World School of the Arts in Miami.[7] One of her uncles, Calvin Ross, served as the police chief of the Miami Police Department.
Georggee boy never does his research. Why take the time when all he needs to know is in his head?
Look theirs a racist under that bush over there!!!
So, how is that privileged background? The parents are just common working slobs. Seems to me you must come from the lowest 10th percentile.
Justice Jackson is a train wreck. But I’m optimistic in part because she is only one vote, whereas presidents Bush I & II and Trump were able to put 5.5. justices on the court who are far better at their jobs and sticking to what the Constitution actually says and means (the 0.5 is Roberts who is good half the time and off base half the time). And for getting the three nominated by President Trump – Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett – over the goal line, we can thank a few senators who are not usually my favorite lawmakers, but rose to the occasion when they were needed most: McConnell, Graham, and Collins. Remember, without Mitch McConnell we would be dealing with a Justice Merrick Garland for 30 years (ugh!).
Mitch wasn’t all bad. I agree, Kansas, the tendency to form circular firing squads in the name of purity has its downsides. How much purity is a matter of judgement and highly contextual. It’s not absolute. Lately, there’s been too many circular firing squads on the Right in my humble opinion.
The seeking of purity on the left has led to an exodus of conservatives from blue states. That has only increased the power of red states in Congress and will be fully felt in the next census, but the Left values only purity and will not tolerate the slightest deviation from the party line. We don’t want to make their dumb mistakes. A little judgement, please.
Dead on accurate. “100%” as the kids would say. 😉
How this woman ever got passed the Senate is mindboggling!
Deeply concerning… deeply sorry 🙏
As evidenced by her comments during oral argument, Justice Brown Jackson simply refuses to accept her professional duty — her sworn responsibility to discharge her office in good faith in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
She instead asserts a higher duty, to her conscience and the dictates of her “expertise.” No external duty may suppress or subordinate her “human right of self-expression.” When she professes shamanistic faith in the wisdom and impartiality of “credentialed” experts, she necessarily includes herself. The Constitution and laws thus should be what she says it is according to her conscience and her discernment of justice and the best interests of the people.
This judicial philosophy is an obvious invitation to technocratic oligarchy. It reveals the oligarchic collectivism that lies at the heart of progressivism. It suggests questions that have bedeviled Western society since Julius Caesar decided that the Senate and Republic of Rome wasn’t working in the best interests of Rome.
More prosaically, this judicial philosophy seems flat out unethical. Justice Brown Jackson took an oath to accept the following duties without caveat or condition:
“to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; …
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; … without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and … well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Nowhere in this sworn pledge did Justice Brown Jackson promise to “make it up as she goes” under “#MyConstitution.” Or even to follow a “living constitution” changing in accordance with the whims and fancies of the current generation. That was the deal: we gave her judicial power and she agreed to honor the law, not to become it.