Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is again warning of a growing threat to the nation. In her lone dissent in Chiles v. Salazar, Jackson observed that “to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now.” The ominous tone stemmed from the fact that free speech had prevailed over state-imposed orthodoxy in a Colorado case. Eight justices, including her two liberal colleagues, ruled that Colorado could not prevent licensed counselors from “any practice or treatment” that “attempts or purports to change” a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The win for free speech was catastrophic for Jackson and many on the left. Allowing counselors to discuss the causes and basis for sexual orientation changes, Jackson maintained, would “open a can of worms.” It would be far better for the majority to simply silence such dissenting voices in the name of science.
The dissent in Chiles is only the latest example of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a pronounced dismissal of free speech values. Consider the holding of her colleagues that Jackson finds so horrific.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the First Amendment “reflects … a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth … any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”
What a nightmare.
Instead, Jackson would have declared the ban on anything deemed “conversion therapy” to be “conduct,” not speech. It is that easy. You simply impose an orthodoxy and then treat any dissenters as being regulated for their conduct, not their viewpoints.
Justice Elena Kagan could not withhold her frustration with her colleague, noting that “[b]ecause the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.” She added that Jackson’s view “rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”
Other countries have embraced Jackson’s permissive approach to speech curtailment. Recently, Malta failed to convict a man who was facing five months in prison for merely discussing his own abandonment of homosexuality due to a religious conversion.
Of course, we just went through a pandemic when censorship and orthodoxy were dressed up as science. Leading scientific figures were canceled and harassed. That was the case with Jay Bhattacharya, who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration and was a vocal critic of COVID-19 policies. Bhattacharya was targeted due to his dissenting views on health policy, including opposing wholesale shutdowns of schools and businesses.
He and other scientists were later vindicated. European allies that did not shut down their schools fared far better than we did, including avoiding a national mental health and learning crisis. We simply never had that debate.
He was recently honored with the prestigious “Intellectual Freedom” award from the American Academy of Sciences and Letters. He is also now the 18th director of the National Institutes of Health.
Yet, years ago, the courts, the media, and politicians joined in treating dissenting views as “conspiracy theories.”
Some argued that the virus’s origin was likely the Chinese research lab in Wuhan. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called any mention of the lab theory “racist.”
Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.
Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — the government later recognized both positions.
Others questioned the six-foot rule, which shut down many businesses, as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci later admitted that the rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did it result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, but the media further ostracized dissenting critics.
For years, pundits portrayed those who questioned gender reassignment surgeries and treatments as bigots. Now, leading medical associations and European nations have decided that such procedures should not be generally allowed.
All of it was orthodoxy masquerading as science.
Yet, Jackson sees the protection of dissenting scientific and professional views as a “can of worms” that the courts should avoid in favor of state and assocational imposed truths. She wrote that allowing such opposing views “ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing.”
Keep in mind that counselors can still be sued for any harm that they cause due to malpractice or negligence. Indeed, recently in New York, a jury awarded $2 million to Fox Varian, 22, over the double mastectomy performed on her while she was a minor.
State associations can also publish positions on such therapy and seek to convince both professionals and the public on the best practices for children.
None of that was sufficient for Justice Jackson or Colorado. Ironically, Colorado has now succeeded in dramatically strengthening free speech in its repeated failures to curtail it. The Democratic legislators have made the state arguably the most hostile to free speech in the nation.
Colorado’s Supreme Court sought to bar President Donald Trump from the ballot. Notably, while many of us viewed Trump’s views on the 2020 election to be protected speech, Colorado treated it as conduct and advocacy of insurrection.
It was Colorado that sought to force bakers, photographers, and web designers to produce work in favor of same-sex marriages despite their religious objections. Each effort was supported by the Tenth Circuit and each failed in spectacular fashion before the Supreme Court.
As many of us celebrate this victory for free speech, these advocates are denouncing the ruling in apocalyptic terms.
What is most chilling is that Jackson is now routinely called the model for new nominees, including the push to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority.
If so, Jackson’s radical views on constitutional interpretation could be replicated on a new packed Court. To paraphrase this decision, “to be completely frank, we know exactly what will happen then.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This column appeared on Fox.com
Now let’s hope they get the birth rights issue under control? When Katdingbat was unable to define a woman (in any context) she should have been shown the door.
While you are correct that her DEI status kept this incompetent on the bench, my bigger concern is in the medical profession and when I am being treated by a minority, are they truly the best or are they just the medical equivalent of justice brown? What affirmative action and DEI have done is to make people question each non-white person’s capabilities as to whether merit or DEI was their ticket to their position.
I am more worried about medical professionals who are placed, not by merit but by racial preference. Are they as competent as justice brown when they do that delicate surgery?
To quote Senator Kennedy, “She may not be the dumbest person in the world, but she better hope that that person doesn’t die…”
She is a DEI Disaster and an embarrassment to whatever label she calls herself… since she can’t define the word woman…
I did not know that Sen. Kennedy said that, but you produced a genuine outburst of laughter on my part, so thanks for posting it. Sen. Kennedy has a way of mitigating polemic tension with his humor, albeit no holds barred.
++
I believe in his book the quote was about AOC, but I digress… 😉
What this decision really exposes is how elastic the “conduct not speech” move has become. In talk therapy the supposed treatment is nothing but thought expressed in words. There is no separate act first and then a later description of it. The conversation is the act.
When you see that, it becomes clear what the state is doing when it labels one side of that conversation “conduct.” It is not regulating something separate from speech. It is relabeling the very thing it wants to suppress.
Today it is disfavored views about sexuality and gender. If that approach holds there is no limiting principle. Any contested professional viewpoint could be declared “harmful conduct” and shut down the same way.
If you treat free speech as conduct, then the First Amendment protects agreement, not dissent.
Dressing it up as some metaphorical battle between good and bad, right or wrong, is simply stupid. It exposes just state overreach you clown.
Dressing it up as some metaphorical battle between good and bad, right or wrong, is simply stupid.
On that point I’m actually glad we agree it’s stupid. The problem is you’re the one who built that straw man, just so you could knock it down and dodge the argument I actually made.
Tell us what exactly qualifies you – degrees, certifications, experience – to pass judgement on a SC decision that yo had no hand in making?
In our kind of republic it is not just permissible but necessary for ordinary citizens to evaluate what the three branches are doing. The Founders assumed that self‑government requires a formed citizenry, not a public that waits around for “experts” to tell them what to think. The Court publishes its opinions so we can read them and measure their reasoning against the Constitution. You do not need a credential to do that. You just need the willingness to do the work instead of outsourcing your judgment.
” read them and measure their reasoning ” is a non-answer. But qualifies you – education, certifications, experience – to critique supreme court decisions?
OLLY,
The annony’s are not here for real discussion or debate. Just to insult, deflect or other wise obstruct from real conversation. It has been noticed how the annony’s have doubled down on today’s column as the SC ruling is a victory for the 1stA, the Constitution and a blow to the leftist agenda.
Yes, that’s quite obvious and it’s getting even more flagrant as others are more and more ignoring them. I’ll pick and choose when to reply, especially if it’s an opportunity to press a point I’ve been making. This was one of those opportunities. In that regard, these Anon’s are something of a blessing, as they provide all the evidence to reenforce the points we’re making.
Is it really necessary to label someone as a “clown.”? Then again, doing so make you look like a clown.
OLLY,
One would think the mental health profession would be the first and foremost in favor of this ruling. If not, there could be a bunch of non-medical bureaucrat or legislator passing regulations or laws of what a psychologist could or could not say when treating a patient.
Similar to what happened during COVID.
“Two weeks to flatten the curve!!”
Six months later . . .
Upstate, that’s a very interesting angle and it ties back to my “purist” point. The professionals who are not already ideologically bent ought to be the first to welcome this ruling. If a bunch of non‑medical legislators can decide only one script is “safe” for talk therapy, it is just a matter of time before a different set of non‑medical legislators does the same thing in the opposite direction. That is not protecting standards, it is turning the profession into a mouthpiece for whoever happens to hold power.
This woman is truly an embarrassment. One of the many lasting toxic legacies of the corrupt , incompetent, and destructive Biden presidency.
That woman is a SC justice. You?
Smarter and understands the law vs. opinion pretending to be law. How about you? Teach any law courses or argue an cases in court recently?
And what about you? Teach any law courses or argue an cases in court recently?
So was the infamous Roger B. Taney and if his decision in Dred Scott were law today she would be cleaning houses… Hmmmm maybe Taney wasn’t such a dolt after all… 😉
Jackson does not know if it is a woman. How do you know?
The pork is in the right places, as with that recent ex-Duchess.
More KBJs on the Court, as the model for future nominees or the product of a packing of the Court, may have an incredibly beneficial effect. We The People are already horrified at the political machinations of the Judiciary, especially at the federal court level. Forcing the Courts further into that dangerous territory will result in a rebellion of a sort. First vocal opposition. Then at the ballot box. After realizing that the Courts aren’t changing, due to lifetime appointments or continuing political interference, disobedience and refusal to accept rulings will begin. Then retaliation from the bench will begin. Once that happens, it’s game on. The road to chaos is open and the collisions are inevitable.
Someone is thinking today. Smart.
Jackson isn’t ‘imposing an orthodoxy’; she is defending the state’s right to ensure that licensed clinicians provide care based on recognized safety standards rather than personal ideology. Turley, as usual, is mischaracterizing her dissent.
Jackson’s argument isn’t a ‘dismissal of free speech values’ but a recognition of the state’s long-standing power to regulate the practice of medicine. In every other context, the government regulates what a licensed professional can ‘do’ or ‘say’ to a patient (malpractice, informed consent) without it being a First Amendment violation.
Turley’s celebration of ‘viewpoint diversity’ in the exam room conveniently ignores the chaos this creates for medical accountability. By stripping states of the power to regulate clinical talk, the Court has not just protected ‘dissent’; it has potentially invalidated any state-mandated medical guidance—including the very abortion-related restrictions Turley’s own political allies often support. This is the issue Justice Jackson is talking about.
rather than personal ideology? You’re kidding or being stupid as usual?
I underwent conversion therapy and it did wonders for me. Not only did it convert me from being a lesbian to being straight, but I also gave birth to multiple
DNC paid trollschildren thanks to my stud husband.To regulate the practice of medicine by denying free speech… we’re not talking about someone with a scalpel in their hand, we’re talking about…. talking. Counsellors using a therapy that the militant gay left doesn’t want in play, because they know how effective it can be in reducing their numbers. Counsellors using a therapy that the militant trans lobby doesn’t want in play for the same reasons.
It’s a shame conversion therapy isn’t useful in transforming kooks like you into thinking individuals.
“Jackson isn’t ‘imposing an orthodoxy’; she is defending the state’s right to ensure that licensed clinicians provide care based on recognized safety standards rather than personal ideology. Turley, as usual, is mischaracterizing her dissent.”
Jackson IS imposing Orthodoxy.
Colorado IS imposing its particular Orthodoxy.
This is NOT about safety standards.
It is about laws employing Viewpoint discrimination that are unconstitutional.
“Jackson’s argument isn’t a ‘dismissal of free speech values’ but a recognition of the state’s long-standing power to regulate the practice of medicine.”
As Alito pointed out – the State and its Experts in that long standing power to regulate medicine crafted laws that forced the sterilization of people with low IQ’s.
To the extent the state has the power to regulate medical practice – that is constitutionallly WRONG.
The ONLY proper way to regulate private activity that does not involve fraud or violence is TORTS.
But the courts have allowed alot of regulation of the practive of medicine – and we should not be surprised at how egregious our medical costs are.
REGARDLESS, almost perfectly universally – when the states power to regulate ANYTHING runs headlong into the first amendment – free speech nearly always wins.
I would note that SCOTUS did NOT declare the CO law unconstitutional.
This decision merely found that the lower courts MUST apply strict scrutiny – the Constitutional standard that MUST be met when free speech is involved.
This case is just one of myriads of efforts by left wing nuts to make an end run arround Strict scrutiny that SCOTUS has rejected.
CO is free to make a law regarding what therapists can and can not say in treating clients IF they can pass a law that meets the requirements of Strict Scrutiny.
“strict scrutiny requires that the government must show that its actions were “narrowly tailored” to further a “compelling government interest,” and that they were the “least restrictive means” to further that interest.
” In every other context, the government regulates what a licensed professional can ‘do’ or ‘say’ to a patient”
False.
“malpractice” is a TORTS.
That is a lawsuit brought by a person who has claimed to have been harmed against the person alleged to have harmed them.
There are alot of requirements for a successful tort – including ACTUAL harm.
Regardless TORTS are an a postiori process – after the fact.
Absolutely nothing in this decision prohibits a person who comes to a counselor for “homosexual conversion therapy”, for suing the counselor
at a later date – just as many people whyo were subject to gender afriming counselling and gender afirming surgery are now suing therapists and consellors for the harm they caused.
“informed consent” is an affirmative defense in a tort malpractice case.
“without it being a First Amendment violation.”
Loosely correct.
A priori laws regarding speech are subject to strict scrutiny.
That does NOT mean their can be no consequences for speech.
As noted above – homosexual conversion counsellors – just like gender afirming care counsellors can be held accountable for what they say in a counselling setting, where the plantiff relied on that advice and following that advice cause ACTUAL HARM.
Malpractice is a TORT – it is NOT a apriori restriction on speech.
Informed consent is an affirmative defense to malpractice claims.
You are confusing a priori and a posterioi all over the place.
You are confusing resticting speech and holding people accountable whose speech caused ACTUAL HARM.
“Turley’s celebration of ‘viewpoint diversity’ in the exam room”
This is not about viewpoint diversity – it is about state censorship of speech.
Counselors can decide on their own what viewpoints to express during counselling.
“conveniently ignores the chaos this creates for medical accountability. ”
How so ? If you are a therapist and you counsel a patient about ANYTHING, and following your counselling results in ACTUAL HARM,
then you will be subject to a malpractice claim and damages.
Malpractice is a TORT – it long predates statutory law. It is a part of Common Law.
“By stripping states of the power to regulate clinical talk”
A power states do not constitutionally have.
This is NOT knew.
“the Court has not just protected ‘dissent’; it has potentially invalidated any state-mandated medical guidance”
While I am oppposed to medical guidance from the state, this rulling has NOTHING to do with guidance.
Colorado can publish all the guidance on conversion therapy it wants.
What is can not do is apriori STOP specific speech it does not liek without meeting the requirements of strict scrutiny.
“including the very abortion-related restrictions Turley’s own political allies often support.”
Are there pro-lifers who wish to compel doctors to provide specific advice to those seeking abourtions – absolutely – and the courts have struck down attempts to do so.
Nor is their evidence that Turley supports compelled or restricted speech by doctors regarding abortion.
“This is the issue Justice Jackson is talking about.”
Justice Jackson is off talking nonsense that has nothing to do with this case or with free speech.
Your and her examples are addressed by 250 years of first amendment decisions.
It is Jackson and you that is trying to Change the way Free speech is treated constitutionally.
Not the majority.
John Say, as a libertarian you should know your argument is seriously flawed.
A professional license is not a ‘free speech’ permit; it is a contract with the State to provide care that meets minimum safety standards. If a doctor prescribes bleach for cancer, the State doesn’t wait for a ‘tort’ (someone to die) to intervene; it revokes the license for failing the standard of care. By reclassifying clinical advice as ‘pure speech,’ the Court has effectively made professional standards unenforceable.
You argue for ‘post-facto’ torts (lawsuits after harm), but as Justice Jackson noted, the First Amendment is now being used as a shield against those very lawsuits. If the advice is ‘protected speech,’ a therapist can argue they weren’t negligent, they were just ‘expressing a viewpoint.’ Your tort solution is useless.
You claim Colorado can still regulate if they meet ‘strict scrutiny.’ That is a legal mirage. Applying strict scrutiny to medical advice means a doctor can ignore any consensus—on vaccines, surgery, or therapy—by calling it a ‘dissenting viewpoint.’ It turns every exam room into a litigation lottery rather than a place of science.
You claim pro-life efforts to compel speech have failed. False. In March 2026, Kansas HB 2729 and South Dakota SDCL 34-23A-10.1 are actively forcing doctors to recite ideological scripts. If you truly oppose ‘apriori’ speech restrictions, you must admit that Chiles v. Salazar just handed ‘woke’ doctors the power to ignore every red-state abortion restriction ever written and torts lawsuits won’t help at all.
Jackson knew what she was talking about.
“If a doctor prescribes bleach for cancer, the State doesn’t wait for a ‘tort’ (someone to die) to intervene; it revokes the license for failing the standard of care. By reclassifying clinical advice as ‘pure speech,’ the Court has effectively made professional standards unenforceable.”
Do you understand the difference between free speech and force? The physician is limited by his license and malpractice, along with laws that pertain to all. Patients walk through the physician’s door voluntarily and walk out with a choice.
“the First Amendment is now being used as a shield against those very lawsuits.”
Not so. If a physician provides unacceptable advice (medical standards exist), he is liable for license revocation and suits.
“Applying strict scrutiny to medical advice means a doctor can ignore any consensus—on vaccines, surgery, or therapy—by calling it a ‘dissenting viewpoint.’”
Total gobblygook, as are the rest of your comments.
I am trying to picture Sotomayor standing there with an odd look on her face thinking, “wow, this chick is nuts”.
Go away you stupid person.
Talking to yourself?
Obviously, you don’t have anything of value to contribute. Go back to the basement and play video games.
I opened a can of worms. It wasn’t full of freedom of speech, it was full of rotting DEI.
Did you still eat it?
It was too foul to use as bait, too foul even for chumming catfish. I took it the the hazmat disposal site. They said they couldn’t handle social carcinogens. I left it on the DNC’s doorstep. They’ll serve it up next chance they get.
“. . . anything deemed ‘conversion therapy’ to be ‘conduct,’ . . .”
Typical, intellectually dishonest Leftist word games:
Don’t like some speech or ideas, call them “disinformation” (or “silence is violence”).
Do like some criminal or deplorable action, call it speech, e.g., “mostly peaceful protestors.”
Curious, where is the intellectual honesty in the SCOTUS decision? Just asking.
Law is not about honesty, it the manifestation and enforcement of a ideology.
Justice Jackson is just one of many so-called Unqualified Judges that sit in the courts which Biden/Obama appointed to the courts. She is so far Left and out of touch with the law even the other two Liberal Justices voted with the majority on the Colorado case. Justice Jackson should be impeached on the grounds she knows nothing about the real law and an Auto Pen appointment,
So an anon stupid is going top pass judgment on a black woman SC justice. Now that’s credibility.
I’m not going to Attack Justice Brown’s intelligence or qualifications. Only her rulings. Her legal philosophy and especially her inability to define a woman seems to define her progressive credentials and she appears to like the ability of the state to curtail free speech. The other liberals on the court seemed to be in conflict with her and that gives me hope. It’s possible in time she might become less progressive and more trusting of free speech and the edge that gives to our culture.
We are not born fully formed and totally aware of our culture so we must accept a certain amount of friction with free speech. Thats how we learn and grow. Sometimes an alternate idea may make sense and change you or you may research it more fully and find that it reinforces your understandings and beliefs even as you reject something “new”.
We have been having this conversation for 250 years and I hope it continues for another 250 or more. I’ll take an 8-1 decision that favors my view any day and try not to quibble about it.
You and your silly daily sermons.
You and your silly daily comments.
During hearings she, more often than not, begins her questions with, “I don’t understand…”. That’s quite telling in itself. We should always believe her when she says it.
GEB,
Well said.
I would only add, to the alternate ideas that sometimes an idea may have appealed to a person at one time only to change as time goes on.
IQ averages Asian Americans (approx. 103–108), White Americans (approx. 100–103), Latinos (approx. 89–94), and African Americans (approx. 85–91).
It is showing
guyventer, exactly minus 60.
How about Ashkenazi Jews being 107-115? Remember they were the first group to be singled out by Harvard due to overrepresentation.
given the 3 democrat women on the Supreme Court, I am not sure they should be allowed on the Supreme Court as they appear incapable of separating Democrat desire from the Law. Logic and The Constitution.
That disgusting thought was destroyed by yesterdays decision. You stupid fool.
Remember the old saying of “better to be thought of as a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” Your childish remarks reflect your inane posts.
If memory serves, it was Senator Roman Hruska (R-Neb.) who advocated for the (mediocre) nomination of Judge G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court in 1970. He did so over objections that Carswell was merely mediocre, attesting that “mediocre judges and people and lawyers” deserved representation on the Court. That has now happened in the form of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, though not for mediocre people, but for the Left. More or less, she has the attitude of a middling high-schooler who believes justice should come from what one thinks is right, as opposed to the law. She has affirmed this practice on more than one occasion since joining the Court.
What Ketanji may not know is that even if her dream of a packed Court came true, yet another “can of worms”, she would still be a minor figure, because she simply cannot argue with any semblance of legality.
There is nothing mediocre in Brown. She ‘s more capable than you give her credit fork. her credentials are 1st class. Take of those MAGA blinders. And think.
When will she demonstrate her intelligence?
And when will you become a SC justice?
You just made the case for what “gdonaldallen” stated! We The People thank you for that. But, you are truly out of your freaking mind to stand behind what you stated about brown!!!
If there’s a credit fork, her cred is stuck on 2nd prong.
I think this would be a wonderful opportunity to pause for a moment and give thanks for the great contributions of the black community to our society. Their peaceful and generous nature make them ideal neighbors, lending testimony to their exceptional family values and parenting skills unrivaled by any other culture. Their commitment to academic excellence enriches our schools and serves as an example to all who hope to achieve prominence as a people. Real estate values are fueled by the mix of African Americans into an area due to their caring and respectful nature of these communities, an example of all they have achieved through their enthusiasm for self-improvement by hard work and a self-reliant can-do nature. Without their industrious and creative drive, we would be poorer as a nation.
What? Lets take a moment and consider the violence and damage blacks have done to all Americans. Think about the lives lost. That outweighs everything you claim.
It is apparent that you are doubting Thomas
I love Satire!
“I think this would be a wonderful opportunity . . .”
Racist satire.
Charming.
Best 4/1 comment yet!
Nothing demonstrates the difference in philosophy in America then Supreme Court Justices selected by Trump and Biden. Neil Gorsuch was selected because he is an intellectual heavyweight who stands up for individual liberty, regardless of politics, and is the leader in opposing the abuses of the administrative state always, which has shaped the courts historic scaling back of administrative state abuses. Ketanji Brown Jackson was selected entirely 100% as a DEI hire and has proceeded to embarrass the court with temperament and lack of intellectual depth. She has become the poster child for the failures of DEI. For anyone criticizing the Court for being politicized, this was 8-1 with Kagan & Sotomayor joining Gorsuch. It would have been 9-0 with any reasonable Democratic justice.
So liberals justices don’t defend personal liberties and fight to defend against admin. state abuses? Based on my readings, I can’t support that statement.
DEI has not failed, then why is the federal gov., suing everyone in sight. Cases that will go one for years. It is alive and well. Hiding in plain sight.
One’s person’s reasonableness is another man’s cry for justice.
Gosh, when i tread stuff like this, I think, MAGA is so blind and dumb.
You posting this rambling nonsense then calling anyone else dumb? Classic lunatic leftist barf
Anyone. Sorry, no. Just you.
Are you really that blind
Justice Jackson is intellectually unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court. In fact she is probably there illegitimately since it is most likely that the president who appointed her and who had the sole power to make that appointment was incompetent at the time of the appointment. Pig-headedness is not a sufficient cause for impeachment so Justice Jackson will probably continue with her ideological vapidity for many years on the court. This country’s ship of state has been form and guided by some mighty intellects. Not a few of which have sat on the United States Supreme Court. Ideologies have poisoned court decisions since the beginning of the republic. Probably the worst was the Dred Scott decision of Roger Tawney. We will survive Justice Jackson. She is a genuine non-entity. A mere placeholder.
She is an intellectual of the first order. Excelled in everything she has attempted in her lifetime. A tenacious fighter. Read about her instead of just hating her from a distance. But I’m willing to say that you don’t like her because she’s a woman and black. The problem with you MAGAs, is that you under estimate your opponents. You always loose the good fight because of your ignorance and arrogance.
yet your comment drips with ignorance and arrogance. Anyone who disagrees with you is racist? “You always loose the good fight?” what is the good fight in this instance? Seems to me MAGA ideology is winning and you are in the tiny screeching minority. You are an intellectual of the last order.
What has MAGA won? Little. Getting it’s butt kick since 2016.
Play stupid word games, win stupid prizes.
Sad to say, anon is right. The ignorance and arrogance, the hallmark of MAGA.
Know your enemy, keep them close. But you nutjobs here can’t think
The only reason why you’d write, “I’m willing to say that you don’t like her because she’s a woman and black” is because you are a moron. There is no rational, logical reason for you to draw that conclusion based on ANYTHING he wrote.
Jackson has demonstrated in her published legal opinions to be an intellectual lightweight. This is not the first time her opinions have been ridiculed by the majority for publishing opinions that lack substance.
My guess is she hired nutbag clerks who do the “research” and first drafts of her opinions. They are doing her a disservice. But she chose to hire them. And she chooses to publish the opinions under her name.
Both decisions – who she hires as clerks and publishing subpar opintions – reflect poorly on her judgment.
Phoque you. A quick perusal of her “thinking” as shown in her work defines her as intellectually limited and clearly unaware (or worse, uncaring) of major tenets of American jurisprudence.
She took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution…or something, she wasn’t really paying attention what with all the thoughts of her grandeur and all.
Love Jackson’s tenacity.
you misspelled ignorance! DEI Dumb she is!
“open a can of worms.”. More like rounding up cats. What a delicious decision by SCOTUS.
The fact that Jackson can’t define what a woman is means she has no credibility in my mind. Our free speech experiment has been going on for almost 250 years. I think we already know the effects. Democrats have always tried to put limits on free speech. Never forget that our 2nd amendment right assures our 1st amendment rights.
Democrats have always tried to put limits on free speech. No and wrong. I won’t recite the number of legal cases Trump has initiated in the last few years, but most were about free speech. If anyone wants proof, start at politico.com and take it from there.
politico…. LOL that is funny.
Why are Democrats incapable of logic? So KJB who obvious is unconstrained by logic, knowledge or intelligence…votes what Politico tells her. She should be impeached for stupidity!
Dems incapable you say. Best look at your stupid comments before accusing them. You’re obviously in the lowest 1%.