Since her appointment by President Joe Biden, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has quickly developed a radical and chilling jurisprudence. Her often sole dissents and accusatory rhetoric have drawn not just the ire of her conservative colleagues but her liberal colleagues. This week, that tension deepened with a stinging rebuke from Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch).
At issue is the finalization of the Court’s opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, where the Court ruled 6-3 to ban racial gerrymandering. The Court reaffirmed the use of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to ban intentional racial discrimination in the design of voting districts, but effectively found many districts to be unconstitutional in their current form.
There is no reason why the decision should not be finalized except for a blatantly partisan effort to protect the Democrats from losing seats in the midterm elections. After all, if these districts are unconstitutional, why should states guarantee that voters are given representatives chosen free of racial discriminatory preferences?
That question is even more confusing given the long wait for this opinion. Not only was the case reargued, but there were growing complaints about the delay in releasing the opinion.
Complaints increased after a recent book allegedly reported that Justice Elena Kagan had a vocal confrontation with her colleague, former Justice Stephen Breyer, over his push to release the dissents in Dobbs after the leaking of that opinion. Breyer reportedly agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts that the conservative justices were facing increased death threats due to the delay. Kagan allegedly wanted to further delay the release.
In the Callais decision, the delay was curious since there were six solid votes for the majority and not more of a fracturing of opinions. Indeed, the majority opinion’s references to the Kagan dissent are relatively brief. Nevertheless, the delay has made it very difficult for states to make changes. A few are moving to delay their primaries or draw new maps under extremely tight calendars.
Regardless of the delay, there is no cognizable or principled reason to withhold the opinion to preserve unconstitutional districts. The case has already been on the docket for an unusually long time due to a reargument.
In its one-paragraph order, the court acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s clerk normally waits 32 days after a decision to send a copy of the opinion and the judgment to the lower court. However, it noted that the defenders of the challenged districts had “not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.” Conversely, the other parties raised the need for states to address the impact of the ruling with the approaching elections.
Jackson stood alone in demanding that the unconstitutional districts be effectively preserved for the purposes of this election — guaranteeing Democratic seats in the midterm that could be lost in non-racially discriminatory districts. Neither Kagan nor Justice Sonia Sotomayor would join her in the dissent, despite dissenting from the Callais decision itself.
However, it was her language again that drew the attention of her colleagues.
Justice Jackson lambasted the court’s ruling “has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.” In an Orwellian twist, Jackson suggested that others were playing politics as she sought to effectively protect unconstitutional Democratic districts. She suggested that the case exposed “a strong political undercurrent.”
In arguably the most insulting line, she lectured her colleagues that this case “unfolds in the midst of an ongoing statewide election, against the backdrop of a pitched redistricting battle among state governments that appear to be acting as proxies for their favored political parties.”
She further said that, rather than avoid “the appearance of partiality,” the Court’s action “is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map.”
Justice Alito had had enough. He noted that her reliance on the 32-day period was a “trivial” objection that put form above substance since no party had asked for reconsideration. It would be waiting for 32 days for no purpose, while the other parties had stated a reasonable and pressing need to finalize the opinion.
He chastised Jackson for a dissent that “lacks restraint.” He denounced the dissent as making “baseless and insulting” claims. He particularly objected to the charge that her colleagues were engaging in an unprincipled use of power” as a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”
What is even more chilling than Jackson’s jurisprudence is the fact that she is often cited as the model for Democrats seeking to pack the Court with an instant majority if they retake power. This and other Jackson dissents show why Democrats are so confident that packing the Court will yield lasting control of the government.
Jackson recently told ABC News 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.” For some of her colleagues, that cathartic benefit is coming at too high a cost for the Court.
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
No one should be particularly interested in how Justice Jackson “feels” about the legal issue operant in any given case that comes before her. The focus must be on the what the Constitution and the law has to say. Opinions based on “feelings” are to be avoided. The Court’s duty is to the Constitution, not some nebulous consideration like how an individual Justice may “feel” about a case. What on earth are our most highly regarded law schools teaching their students? If Justice Jackson had her way she could write her opinions on lawn signs and bumperstickers.
Each of us is guided by our feelings. There’s no escaping that fact. Our feelings may serve as precious guides regarding right and wrong and do influence all our decisions, especially the most important ones.
I wouldn’t want an unfeeling judge presiding over the issues I face.
“Each of us is guided by our feelings.”
I feel that you are mistaken.
Now what?
She was created by Joe Biden in his image.
There’s a lack of self-awareness. She’s politically motivated to help the Dems maintain their unconstitutional districts to influence the upcoming election. So she projects her politicization onto the majority, accusing them of being politically motivated to help ensure lawful districts are used in the upcoming election. They could also respond: “Guilty as charged: I favor obedience to the law.”
Lack of self-awareness? Oh the irony. Apparently you’re not aware that she’s pointing out the conservatives are breaking their own rule, the Purcell doctrine, to make it easier for Republicans to change the rules so close to the election. It was Alito who made this rule for lower courts saying making changes so close to an election would produce chaos.
Justice Jackson is right in pointing out Alito is basically a massive hypocrite by allowing the ruling to take place immediately instead of waiting for the normal 32 day period to send the ruling to the lower courts.
As noted by Politico, Alito wrote that by suggesting that “running out the clock” by following the court’s default procedures may indicate bias “on behalf of those who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map.”
You and justice Brown would prefer an election under an unconstitutional map.
Anna, that makes no sense because Alito had no problem allowing an unconstitutional map to be used because the ruling changing it was too close to the election (4 months away).
The “running out the clock” argument is irrelevant. Alito still chose to break the rules and ignore his own philosophy regarding rulings close to an election. Justice Jackson and I are correct in the assertion that the conservatives are breaking their own rules to facilitate a Republican advantage.
Following their default procedures would not indicate bias. It would indicate they stick to their own rules. Not discard them because suddenly they are inconvenient for the winning party.
X
Purcell is not about Maps. It was about voter ID.
While Voter ID is an absolutely fantastic idea, it is NOT a constitutional requirement.
There are TWO constitutional constraints on election districts – the number of people in each district, and that the creation of the districts does not violate other constitutional provisions – like the 14th and 15th amendment.
The Decision here – which has been telgraphed by SCOTUS for 60 years is that the constitution is being violated.
In theory SCOTUS could invalidate 60 years of the elections of house representatives if it wished.
While it is not going to do that – retro activity when the constitution is being violated is the norm.
The Deadline on this was 60 years ago.
“The “running out the clock” argument is irrelevant.”
Of course it is – the very rules you cite REQUIRE that the partyy requestion a rehearing MUST present substanative and unaddressed legal ore constitutional issues, that it can not request a rehearing merely to delay.
Ther has already been a rehearing – you already got your time.
You are free to make purcell challenges as the states choose to redistrict.
“Alito still chose to break the rules”
Nope – there are numerous provisions in the rule to send notice to lower courts immediately.
A single justice may direct that.
Either party may request it.
The states did.
The challengers were queried as to whether they were requesting a rehearing and they said no.
The CAN’T request a rehearing – they already had one – they would need a NEW constitutional issue – and this is a 60 year old case. There are no new issues no one thought of.
READ THE RULES
As to partisan advantage – democrats have had 60 years of partisan advantage from an unconstitutional provision of the VRA
The country would be radically different today – had democrats been required to follow the constitution from the start.
X you can ALWAYS argue partisan advantage.
In virtually all instances – following the constitution favors ONE party over another.
You do not get to whine “partisan advantage” and bias – when YOUR partisan advantage is being ended.
If a decision is constitutional, whose ox is gored is irrelevant.
Almost every issue can be painted as partisan.
EVERY issue has biases to it.
The requirement for Judges is NOT to rule against their biases.
It is to rule according to the law and constitution – without regard to their biases
In this case the VRA S2 racist redistricting has violated the 14th and 15th amendment o begin with.
In the
60’s that probably did not have much political bias – Democrats controlled the south where this racist redistricting was taking place.
All VRAS2 did was deny white democrats seats and give them to Black Democrats.
Over the past 60 years the GOP has slowly taken the south.
Now those racist redistricting is guaranteeing democrats seats they would not have otherwise.
It is also slowing the movement of minorities to the GOP – as minorities are guaranteed a seat as democrats,
But have to earn it from voters – many of whom are minorities without the racist redistricting.
Regardless SCOTUS has said that the VRAS2 had a clock on it from the start – 25 years in 1965.
It is 35 years overdue for an end.
The continued existance of the VRAS2 racist redistricting gives an unearned partisan advantage to democrats.
Obviously Justice Jackson and every other Democrat continuing to support this rasism has political and other biases.
Just as Alito and those opposed to this have political and other biases.
The only question is who is following the constitution.
The same is true regarding your Rule.
The rule is NOT absolute – it has numerous exceptions – it is NOT a constitutional right.
It is a convention.
Is there political advantage in ignoring the exceptions – absolutely
Is there political advantage in following two separate exceptions – absolutely. ‘
But a violation of the constitution is being aborted by moving this along,
and prolonged by delay.
X pretty much universally you argue that anything that provides a partisan advantage to Republicans is illegitimate.
You do not question whether there is other factors than partisan advantage.
You ALWAYS argue – regardless of any other factors, that a partisan advantage alone makes the actions of Republicans illegitimate.
It does not matter if they are following the law.
It does not matter if they are follwing the constitution.
In this case they are FOLLOWING two separate provisions of “the rule” that allow expediting notice.
Contra your claim they are following the rule, they are following the law.
Purcell is irrelervant – you get to challenge the redistricting under Purcell if and when it occurs.
The case before SCOTUS is about the constitution.
The order to lower courts is – follow the constitition.
There is no other issue properly before the court.
Is there partisan advantage to “doing the right thing” – ALWAYS doing the right thing will advantage someone.
Didn’t they slow walk this through the Legislatures to try to push it against any deadlines?
No one is breaking a rule.
The rule allows the court as a whole or even a single justice to expedite sending the decision to the lower courts.
The issue here is constitutional.
There has already been a highly unusual rehearing.
There has never been a third.
Ther states requested the decision be sent to the lower courts.
The losing counsel did not object or inform the court they were requesting a rehearing.
They are nOT requesting a rehearing – as they would have to certify that the rehearing was NOT to delay.
They would have to find a significant error in the decision or a constitutional argument that everyone missed.
This case has been lititgated for 60 years – it has no secrets left.
” the Purcell doctrine, to make it easier for Republicans to change the rules so close to the election.”
The purcell doctrrine does not apply at this time.
It was not raised in the pleadings or during arguments.
Democrats will with certainty raise it to challenge the newly drawn maps.
The courts will get to decide THEN whether there is a Purcell issue.
I expect that SCOTUS will toss purcell claims – BECAUSE the foundation of this decision is to stop an infringement on the 14th and 15th amendment. An d because this decison was beingf telegraphed by SCOTUS for 60 years.
Regardless, the result of this decision will be a spate of litigation.
Some states will go forward with redistricting – and democrats will challenge that – and one of their challenges will be purcell.
Other states will delay – and republicans will challenge that – noting that redistring is constitutionally required.
But at this time Purcell is not properly before the court.
” It was Alito who made this rule for lower courts saying making changes so close to an election would produce chaos.”
The election is 6 months away.
Many states do not have primaries until August.
The November election date is essentially constitutionally fixed by congress.
Primaries are not in the constitution. They are not constitutionally required.
Frankly Primaries should not be conducted by the states
A primary is how a political party choses its candidate – political parties are not in the constitution.
States can and have allowed parties to chose their candidate myriads of different ways – a primary election is not required.
In most states you can get on the ballot for the general election by gathering enough signatures – you do not need a party endorsement.
Personally I would throw govenrment entirely out of the primary process.
States should not operate the primaries, print the primary ballots or have anythign to do with how primaries are conducted.
Only the general election is part of the constitution and a responsibility of the state and federal government.
“Justice Jackson is”
Wrong and sniping.
1. Contrast between Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh: While Thomas was never affected in his judgements by “Senator from MBNA” (Bryan York) actions’, during his confirmation process, Kavanaugh still seems to be rattled by Blasey Ford’s accusations.
2. In Allen v. Milligan (No. 21-1086), Kavanaugh was decider {1]. In his dissent Thomas referenced his disdain to him in FNs 4-5, 16 and 21..
3. Withe the rare move for reargument [2], SCOTUS extended the time frame of this case to almost two years:
Timeline:
7/30/24: Petitions to hear the cases.
11/4/24: Certiorari granted, cases consolidated.
3/25/25: Oral arguments were heard
6/27/25: SCOTUS restored the case to the calendar for reargument
10/15/25: Oral arguments were heard for a 2nd time.
4/29/26: Ruling
[1[ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-109_l53m.pdf
This is what the Law Schools (as well as the Med Schools, the J Schools and Schools of Education) are turning out these days. Objective is passé’, you can “deconstruct” anything to fit your pre-conceived notions, the truth can be “your truth” and your feelings matter more than facts.
This woman, you see, I can tell the difference, is the first Supreme Court Justice to not consider the Constitution, laws and precedence in her decisions and dissents, she is a wannabe actress who actually got herself into a play on Broadway and not a serious jurist. Another Biden disaster.
Hullbobby, calling Jackson ‘radical’ for asking the Court to follow its own rules is a special kind of oblivious. She isn’t inventing a new doctrine; she’s literally throwing the conservatives’ own Purcell Principle back in their faces. You know, the rule they love to weaponize to stop lower courts from helping voters because it’s ‘too close to an election’?.
Apparently, that ‘strict’ rule miraculously vanishes the moment the majority wants to help a state redraw maps while people are already casting ballots.
Turley’s column is a classic ‘if you can’t argue the law, attack the lawyer’ hit piece. He’s pearl-clutching over her ‘accusatory rhetoric’ because he has no defense for the actual merits: the majority bypassed their standard 32-day waiting period to intervene in an active election.
If you want to see the hypocrisy, look at Justice Alito in Merrill v. Milligan (2022). In that case, he joined a majority that used the Purcell Principle to block a lower court from fixing an illegal Alabama map because it was ‘too close’ to an election—even though the election was nine months away. Yet here in Callais, he’s fine with rushing an order mid-election because it suits the state’s current political goal.
Alito’s ‘stinging rebuke’ wasn’t a legal defense—it was a temper tantrum. He’s not mad because she’s wrong; he’s mad because she’s right, and he hates being called out for the blatant hypocrisy of ignoring his own procedural rules. He’s trying to tone-police her because he can’t law-police her. Jackson isn’t ‘lacking restraint’—she’s just the only one in the room with the spine to point out that the emperors have no clothes, no consistency, and apparently, no calendar.
It has nothing to do with the rules, her dissent, among her other inane writings, are non-sensical, irrelevant to the Constitution and the law. You can defend this left wing radical all you want and if you try to claim that she is mainstream liberal it does not speak well of liberal Democrats.
X, I know you defend anything and everything on the left, but it is tiring, banal and a juvenile reading of AI to gather some facts to throw into your mélange of absurdity.
HullBobby,
Just ignore the AI bot. Not worth reading. Just scroll past.
Hullbobby, it has everything to do with the rules. You can’t defend the majority’s obvious breaking of their own rules. That’s the point Jackson is making. I’m defending the fact that she’s right. Turley cannot argue that Justice Jackson is wrong. He’s focusing on her character instead of the law. That’s a dead giveaway that Turley knows Jackson is not wrong.
You’re not proving or showing I’m wrong in my assertions because I’m not.
I’m claiming that she’s correct in her pointing out the hypocrisy of the conservative justices breaking their own rules to facilitate a republican gerrymander.
It’s so obvious that you cannot defend the conservatives position as justified. Her dissent was on point. That’s why Alito is throwing a tantrum. Because he cannot defend this contradiction of his own views.
X the exceptions are ALSO rules.
The 32days can be waived at the request of either party, by the court as a while or by any individual justice.
In this case Alito directed the order to be posted to the lower courts.
AND one party requested that AND the other party did not object
AND both parties were asked if they wanted a rehearing and said no
AND the 32days is to request a rehearing which can only be done if there is a new argument – based on the law or constitution, not addressed by the courts at all.
There is no such argument.
The portion of the rule you cite does not erxist in a vaccuum, it exists for a reason – and the exceptions exist – because tyje reason fort the delay does not always exist.
thne 32 day delay is not a dealy for delays sake – that would be unethical.
It is there for a purpose, and that purpose does not exist in this case.
A delay without purpose IS a vioation of the rules and is unethical
Dear Mr. Turley, Justice Jackson only made it to the Supreme Court because she is a person of “color” and she is a female. I wonder why she could not say the difference between men and women. That alone should have disqualified her from the top bench.
In other words. DEI
She made to the courts based on merit alone. Not because of her race. Justice Thomas on the other hand could be argued he did benefit from early DEI programs. But that would be another discussion.
This dim-witted “Justice” speaks more than all the other Justices because she is a theater kid in the wrong venue.
He had YEARS to prove his extreme worthiness, unlike the free ride she got BECAUSE of her race. Would anyone even notice her if she was a white male or female? No. She’s an embarrassment and Blacks should fight to stop promoting “their own” just because of her race which she had NOTHING to do with.
Jackson is completely right. In 2022 the court found Louisiana’s map to be illegally racial gerrymandering, but allowed them to use the illegal maps for the election. Now in a very similar case the court is rushing to allow them to change the maps, even after voting has begun. Calvinball, the Rs win even when they lose, and win more when they win.
Hey sally. Just maybe you libs should have never created gerrymandering
I assume you’re referring to democrats before the ‘big changeover’ to republicans back in the 60’s. Yesterday’s Democrats are today’s conservatives. They never left th South, just the party they once called home. Now it’s the Republican Party.
Never happened. The Northern Dems were every bit racist. Dems still are! DEI, Affirmative Action, protection for illegals, protection for lawlessness if Black or POC, men interchangeable with women/fathers w mothers if it destroys the nuclear family, going after churches that teach actual Biblical and Biblical Principles, Quotas, Reparations, etc.
Jackson is a partisan hack. She admits to basing her opinions on how she feels about things, rather that the Constitution. Of course you, as an unthinking liberal, agree with her.
Alito does it too. In fact every judge does this.
If you can’t discern a difference between Alito’s writings and Jackson’s then you don’t know how to read.
The trusted job of a Supreme Court Justice is to intelligently analyze the Constitutionality of the law. Biden made it clear he would appoint a black women to the bench. His decision was race based and in my opinion illegal. She should be removed.
Whatever it was, it was not illegal. Biden had the authority to nominate whoever he wanted and he did. The Senate’s job was to confirm or deny the nomination. They confirmed. Regardless of whether or not some thinks what Biden did was illegal, the Constitutional conditions were met for her appointment.
Sally, exactly. This is the Calvinball justice Jackson was referring to. She’s been proven right every time when the conservatives on the bench find themselves at odds with their own philosophy or rules.
ROFL
Jackson is almost as bad at the law and constitution as you are.
Jackson has never been right in disent.
What she has been is purely partisan.
YOU constantly accuse – possibly correctly, the conservatives of being partisan.
The role of the court is to follow the constitution NOT to rule the opposite of any politics or biases they have
You completely preclude the possibility that a consertvative can bed political, biased and still right.
While ALWAYS presuming that a progressive is right – withourt regard tot he law or constitution.
You literally elevate ONLY your politics and bias above the constitution.
According to Sally, the newest female Svelaz, George and X, is that since LA had an unconstitutional gerrymandered state 4 years ago it should still have an unconstitutional gerrymandered state. I guess when it favors Dems it can go on in perpetuity but when it doesn’t favor Dems it must be prevented from ever happening.
Hullbobby, you’re missing the forest for the trees. This isn’t about whether Democrats like gerrymandering; it’s about the conservative majority breaking their own rules to favor one party.The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Voting Rights Act no longer protects majority-minority districts unless intentional discrimination is proven—effectively green-lighting partisan gerrymandering under the guise of ‘race-neutrality’.
But the real scandal here is the Purcell Principle. This is the doctrine Alito and the conservatives religiously cite to stop courts from changing election rules close to a vote to avoid ‘chaos and confusion’.Yet, in Louisiana v. Callais (2026), they did a complete 180. They bypassed their own 32-day waiting period (Rule 45.3) to immediately finalize a ruling while people were literally casting ballots in an ongoing primary. Jackson is calling out the blatant hypocrisy: the majority uses ‘procedural restraint’ to block Democrats from fixing maps, but ditches those same ‘strict’ rules the moment Republicans need to pause an election and redraw districts mid-stream.
Alito’s anger isn’t a legal defense; it’s a defensive reaction to being caught discarding his own principles for power. Jackson is simply doing her job—holding the majority to the standard they’ve spent years imposing on everyone else.
Here are examples of Alito’s hypocrisy,
Merrill v. Milligan (2022): Justice Alito joined the 5-4 majority to stay a lower court order that would have required Alabama to draw a second majority-Black district. Even though the primary was four months away, the majority claimed it was “too close” to the election to change the maps. This forced Alabama voters to use a map later found to be illegal in the 2022 midterms.
Malliotakis v. Williams (2026): Just months before the Callais ruling, Justice Alito concurred in a decision where the majority was criticized by the dissent for being “irreconcilable” with the Purcell Principle. In that case, the Court was admonished for interfering with state election laws on the “eve of an election,” a practice Alito usually condemns.
Jackson is holding up a mirror to his own conveniently flexible principles. He uses the Purcell Principle like a deadbolt to lock out voting rights challenges, then opens the door the moment a state wants to pause an election and redraw districts to favor Republicans. Jackson is just pointing out that the ‘rules of the road’ shouldn’t change depending on who’s driving.
“You’re missing the forest for the trees”
Pot meet Kettle.
“This isn’t about whether Democrats like gerrymandering;”
Correct – it is about whether the VRAS2 unconstitutionally forces gerrymandering.
“it’s about the conservative majority breaking their own rules to favor one party.”
No rules were broken – you keep returning to that.
Intentionally killing someone is murder – except in self defense.
YOUR argument is that failing to convict someone for murdert when they act in self defense is a violation of the law. Clearly it is not – the exceptions – and 3 different exceptions apply to this case ARE part of the rules.
“The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Voting Rights Act no longer protects majority-minority districts ”
No it ruled that the VRAS2 violated the 14th and 15th amendment.
“unless intentional discrimination is proven”
Intentionally creating majority minority districts is INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION – and that is why it violatesd the 14th and 15th amendment.
“effectively green-lighting partisan gerrymandering under the guise of ‘race-neutrality’”
Otherwise called FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION.
Following the constititon will ALWAYS benefit someone. Not following it will always benefit someone.
Democrats have had 60 years of unconstitutional advantage because of that – the courts FORCED racial gerrymandering.
Democrats benefited. Now Republicans will benefit from the end of an unconstitutional benefit to democrats.
Someone ALWAYS benefits.
“But the real scandal here is the Purcell Principle.”
No that was not an issue in this case.
You are perfectly free to raise that in a lawsuit in any state that moves forward to redistrict in 2026.
But courts decide the issues before them.
Purcell was not before the court.
” This is the doctrine Alito and the conservatives religiously cite to stop courts from changing election rules close to a vote”
And yet SCOTUS allowed th3e entire 2020 election to be conducted lawlessly in changes made from late may 2020 thru to election day and after.
You rant about purcell and then about avoiding chaos and confusion.
Purcell is not a doctrine or principle it is a value. It is not a provision in the constitution.
The court will not allow changes close to an election – weighing a large number of factors.
There is no abnsolute bar. There is a weighing of factors.
You cite chaos and confusion – SCOTUS will allow a change at the very last minute if that does not cause chaos or confusion – does that violate Purcell ? It would if it was a principle.
All SCOTUS decisions are NOT broad statements of principle – MOST are decisions based ont eh specifics of the constitution the law and the facts of the case.
None of that was before SCOTUS in this case.
“Merrill v. Milligan (2022)” The election was 4 months away – according to YOU.
This election is 6months away
Merill was a question about complying with a law THIS law, that SCOTUS has been warning was unconstitutional for decades.
This case is about complying with the constitution.
Complying with the constitution is near absolute.
Complying with the law is not.
I would further note that the map you claim Alabama used that was illegal has just be found to be LEGAL by this decision.
Malliotakis v. Williams
”At this point, however, the Purcell principle does not counsel against a stay. That principle concerns “[l]ate judicial tinkering” that “can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates, political parties, and voters, among others.” Merrill v. Milligan, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in grant of application for stay) (slip op., at 4). Here, our stay, far from causing disruption or upsetting legitimate expectations, eliminates much of the uncertainty and confusion that would exist if the Independent Redistricting Commission proceeded to draw a new district that this Court would likely strike down if the cases reached us in time.”
Alito
You purported counter example is backwards and upside down.
Alito precluded the lower courts from interfering in an election where the likely results of their interference would be unconstitutional.
.
Asd is typical of left wing nuts you constantly Tell us what conservatives supposedly are doing or beleive.
But you do not actually cite what they said or actually did. which quite often is different from what you claim – often even the exact opposite.
I don’t know how much further she would have to go to necessitate her impeachment from the SCOTUS, but surely even Democrats are embarrassed by her proud disdain for our Constitution.
Could it be enough to get 2/3 of the Senate to vote to remove her? Do Democrats really want to be associated with that humiliating mess who can’t define what a woman is?
She has overtly admitted favoring her own opinions over the Constitution, so when will the House begin her impeachment?
We The People have recognized for decades that the Judiciary has become a bastion of political gamesmanship. To us, the Law has become a joke, the Court the comedy club and judges the comedians. The framework of Respect and Obedience we once believed in has been destroyed by the Leftist jurists who believe that they have a mandate to rule the nation from the bench rather than following the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
It has always been curious why her nomination had not be challenged. Had Biden appointed anyone to any other position in the Federal government as limited to a black female, that appointment would have been nullified as unlawful. Nominations to the judiciary enjoy no exemption.
Turley is attacking Justice Jackson’s character to avoid the fact that she’s right. She’s pointing out correctly that the conservatives in the court, especially Alito are ignoring their own rules about interfering with elections when they are so close. They are the ones ordering lower courts not to issue rulings so close to election dates because it would cause undue chaos and problems.
He’s so focused on belittling her record while ignoring the merits of her claims which Turley knows are correct. Of course the racists and bigots will follow through and join in calling the justice a DEI hire, or incompetent because…they know better? Hardly. This column was written for the peanut gallery’s need to bash the Justice out of pure ignorance.
If you can tell a judge’s politics by his or her decisions, that is not much of a judge. A real judge’s decisions are dictated by the proven facts as allowed by time tested rules of evidence, and the law as interpreted by its plain language or in appropriate cases, legislative history. In the early 1970s, Texas embarked on a radical change in its legal system as it pertained to ordinary consumers. Mandatory treble damages were awarded if a business deceived a consumer. As expected, much of the business community in Texas joined in challenging this law. One of the earliest, strongest pro-consumer opinions was written by our then Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. Only later did I learn that his personal politics were decidedly right wing, far more aligned with the businesses who argued before him. But he was a Judge first, and the statute’s language and legislative history would only allow him one conclusion. That was a real Judge. Jackson is not.
You must then must think all the Rs on the court are not real judges. This case broke with decades of precedent.
Sally, respectfully, I do think and that is why I do not agree with your conclusion.
Wrong.
The Court “have moved this country closer to a colorblind jurisprudence than at any time in our history.”
Been so for decades.
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/05/04/colorblind-constitution-the-roberts-court-ends-a-sordid-business/
Come On Man! The SISTAA is bringing SOUL to the job of clapping back at the MAN! Those old dirty Slavers and Colonialists gotta be slapped down regularly because those Slaver Laws are violations of Human Rights and only a revolution followed by violence in the streets will bring paradise to all non-Colonialists! Wacky? Sure but you can bet she believes it. Thanks Joey for polluting civilized society with a legal moron at the pinnacle of our justice system – that was one stupid white man!
I wonder why Justice Jackson does not reevaluate her need or desire to write opinions that are opposing the majority. To most members on the court and public, including some of her liberal associates, she lacks the depth and understanding of the issues decided based on the constitution and precedent. So I wonder why she and her staff, continue to present herself in such a fashion? Is she waiting for the packing of the court to provide more like her so her inadequacies are hidden by the others? Is she waiting for a Democrat president and Senate so she can retire and guarantee a replacement similar to her leanings? Or is she just so unaware of her inadequacy to interpret the law based on the law instead of her feelings?
Personally I would like to see her improve, as I would any person in a position of importance. However I am afraid my hope will extinguished by her lack of ability to look inside herself for self improvement on any positives or negatives.
Partisan gerrymandering is a form of election rigging. Both parties seem eager to rig the results in their favor. 400 House seats are “safe” (predictable in advance who will win), a disgusting deviation from free and fair elections. SCOTUS is no help in solving this. They seem aloof to the big picture, always stuck in the weeds.
The nuance being missed in this reply and others is that now racial redistricting is recognized as unconstitional. ILLEGAL It should stop immediately.There is no reason to wait 32 days. It should stop NOW.
However, redistricting is a political process and open to the political process extant in each state. That debatable issue would be subject to a different legal or legislative review.
The inflamed rhetoric on this case has been damaging. The country could use more empirical measurement of the factuality of the predicted racial apocalypse.
I’m sorry but could anyone interpret this phrase?
“the factuality of the predicted racial apocalypse.”
She is not only an embarrassment, but also a dangerous fool.
“Jackson recently told ABC News 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.” For some of her colleagues, that cathartic benefit is coming at too high a cost for the Court.”
Her JOB isn’t “give her opinions”, it’s to apply and interpret the law as it’s written. If she wants to be a storyteller then resign as a justice and get a job with Random House.
Cathartic indeed. Is she tasked to interpret law? Have her priest, reverend, psychologist attend to her emotions, remembering that the country dies not necessarily share her psychosis.
Justice Jackson is as qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice as Joe Biden was qualified to be President of the United States. lmfao