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
I like Harold Ford Jr. Pretty cool guy. Pretty rational and fair.
To be sure, Religion plays no part in resolving the conflicts mankind faces. Except, “Love one another as I have loved you.” What? That has nuthin to do with nuthin!
Perhaps. Perhaps it does.
If our brothers and sisters had been treated with love, as precious guests visiting our new country, perhaps things would be different. To be shocked or disappointed that that hateful, barbaric treatment of innocent, helpless people, would return to us today in the form of all kinds of resistance and hatred for what was done long ago, and infiltrates our subconscious thinking, just as it does theirs, is rather naive don’t you think?
What’s the saying so popular today? “What goes around, comes around.”
Yes, and that part about its a flawed world.
What is even more chilling than Jackson’s jurisprudence is the fact that she is often cited as the model for Democrats….
Does Jackson have a Nazi tattoo spread on her chest?
Could oyster farmer with a Nazi tattoo scandal be Democrats’ new champion?
A gruff oyster farmer who only recently got rid of his Nazi-style tattoo is the unlikely face of the Democrats’ bid to seize the Senate from President Donald Trump’s Republicans — and recover working-class voters.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/could-oyster-farmer-nazi-tattoo-012134211.html
Working-class voters would prefer a gruff soldier who sports a Jerusalem Cross tattoo than a “oyster” shucker who has a smaller chest size than a Trans man. Apparently Pete Hegseth having a Jerusalem Cross tattoo on his chest induced demons within Democrats / Legacy Media as if an exorcism were about to be be performed on them
Democrats just can’t get enough of demons, Nazis and Ketanji
she’s not a bald-faced liar like Anita Hill, but she’s a low-brow democrat goon, just the same.
I mean, if the map is unconstitutional, it only makes sense to expedite the matter so a lawful map can be used. If the Robinson appellants, in opposing the motion, had indicated they intended to file for reconsideration, that would have been one thing. But the Court noted that they did not express any such intention, and Jackson did not deny it. Therefore, the ordinary delay served no purpose under the circumstances, and would have just made it that much harder for the Constitution to have been complied with. I am really not seeing any reasonable position in opposition to what the Court did.
Is that what you thought in Alabama in 2022?
In 2022, after two different district courts held that Alabama’s post-2020 Census congressional district map was unlawful, the Supreme Court stayed those rulings—allowing Alabama to use that map in the midterms (Justice Alito was in the majority in that order). But when the Court reached the merits the following year, it agreed with the district courts. Thus, the Court intervened in 2022 in order to allow Alabama to use maps that district courts had blocked in rulings the justices later affirmed. Nor was the Alabama case a one-off; one can draw a straight line from the Court’s unsigned, unexplained February 2022 intervention in Alabama to at least five congressional districts that should have been redrawn before the 2022 midterms but weren’t. Republicans won all five of those seats—giving Republicans their exact margin of control in the House in the 118th Congress.
A note to the moronic Democratic Party shills trolling this thread, read the following in its entirety…
Justice Alito Explains That Justice Jackson Is An Idiot. Good.
Don’t forget to click the Page 2 link.
Thanks
Thanks for that link and the reminder to see page 2.
I found Prof. Turley’s question “why should states guarantee that voters are given representatives chosen free of racial discriminatory preferences?” so difficult to parse as to be virtually incomprehensible.
Page 2 of your link puts it more gracefully: Using the…2024 map…would subject Louisiana voters “to representatives elected in districts deemed invalid…”
Dear Prof Turley,
It doesn’t matter how they gerrymander the racial maps. For every obvious reason, Trump is going to lose the elections in a landslide and most likely be impeached .. . 3rd time charm.
Again, if only Democrats and Republicans can gerrymander voter maps .. . the SCOTUS is spitting into the wind and telling you it’s raining.
*Hopefully the Democrats will do better this time. .. but I doubt it.
It’s possible that the Dems will retake the House. Then again, I recall quite a few comments on this blog in 2024 telling us Trump was going to lose the election.
It’s more than POSSIBLE.
It is an absolute certainty.
November 3 will be an extinction level event, returning the GOP to the 40 years of minority status it had from 1955 to 1995.
That kind of certainty was also expressed about Trump losing the 2024 election. For my part, I’ll just wait and see, rather than pretending to know the future.
OldManFromKS,
Agreed.
Just about no one thought Trump would win in 2016 either. I know I woke up the day after the election mildly surprised he won.
James Carville recently noted the “Abolish ICE!” mantra is similar to the “De-fund the police!” mantra. That did not work in the Democrats favor.
Recent moves and words by Democrats in NYC, NY and Seattle are not enduring them to voters as those voters leave those Blue ran states and cities for Red ones, taking their votes and tax dollars with.
Aside from raising taxes, failing budgets and “We are not Trump!” not sure if they really have anything to run on. If they do, they are not talking about it out loud. Bill Maher’s take down of Newsome last Friday was quite brutal and Bill Maher is not exactly a Republican. Although by today’s standards, Bill Maher would be considered slightly right of center. Same thing with JFK.
oldman
It could happen before November.
Mark your calendar for May 19, primary day for Thomas Massie in Kentucky. He is being primaried by a Trump selected rival.
Massie has said that several dozen of his Republican colleagues have told him that they will abandon Trump if he wins the primary. They are too afraid to speak up now, but they have decided that if Massie beats Trump’s designated candidate they will follow his lead in opposing Trump.
John say. I think the case is about gerrymandering, ‘racial’ gerrymandering to be more precise. That is; the Dems want to gerrymander voter maps to increase the relative importance of ‘racial’ votes, the Repubs want gerrymander voter maps to limit the relative importance of ‘racial’ votes.
*this assumes, in both cases, ‘racial’ voters tend to vote Dem.
edit. Sry. .. the above was meant as a reply to John Say.
*I’m a big fan Thomas Massie!
DG, as you said in another context, it;s not an assumption it is a certaint,y
It is possible the Dems will retake the House and the Senate.
You do not recall me saying Trump was going to lose the past election. .. in fact, I thought the Dems nominating Joe Biden was like sending out a crippled gazelle to face a voracious pride of hungry lions on the plains of the Serengeti.
*I do expect Trump will lose the mid-term elections (assuming we have elections).. . and will be impeached.
No, I don’t specifically recall you predicting Trump would lose. I recall others saying that with confidence, but I don’t recall exactly who.
If the Dems retake the House, then yes, Trump will be impeached, probably five times. The Dems have lowered to bar to impeachment to mean “I don’t like the guy,” or “I disagree with his politics.” They will impeach him just because they dislike him, that’s how corrupt they have become. It will all be a waste of time because they will never get the votes in the Senate to convict. They know that, and they will do it anyway as political theater. Their America is all about bread and circuses, minus the bread.
I prefer to look at Dem Trump impeachments like Goldilocks and The Three Bears porridge.
The 1st Dem Trump impeachment was for the sins of the Bidens in Ukraine, the 2nd Trump impeachment was a foregone conclusion (Trump lost the election) .. . but the 3rd Trump impeachment will be just right.
*”First she tasted the porridge of the Great Big Bear, and that was too hot for her. Next she tasted the porridge of the Middle-sized Bear, but that was too cold for her. And then she went to the porridge of the Little Wee Bear, and tasted it, and that was neither too hot nor too cold, but just right, and she liked it so well that she ate it all up, every bit!”
Trump isn’t up for election idiot. You must vote the stupid communist party.
Excuse me. Trump .. . and his fast-dwindling low IQ MAGA-mob zombies are going to lose the elections in a landslide.
*after all, we are not communists here.
interesting. when will you democrats ever be right about anything?
dgsnowden
The issue in this case is not gerrymandering.
The court properly determined in other cases that there is no objectively correct way to establish voting districts and that it was best to keep the courts OUT of politics.
If you do not like the way your state legislators are seting districts – vote them out of office.
Gerry mandering is ancient. Until recently the most common form was to create safe seats for powerful officials.
More recently both parties have sought to do the opposite – to create the maximum number of districts for their party.
That form of gerry mandering is politically extremely dangerous – when you attempt to leverage a narrow majority into a much larger one – your create large number of districts were a few percent swing in the vote will change the outcome of many many many districts.
If a majority party wishes to take that risk – why should we stop them ?
You are predicting a massive backlash in November – that is possible but a large scale swing in the house would require the existance of a very large number of district’s with a very small republican advantage.
It is highly unlikely that Republicans are going to win elections in NYC
It is also highly unlikely that Democrats are going to win in Wyoming.
A large swing in the house of representatives REQUIRES either a massive swing in the electorate Currently Democrats are ahead in the Generic ballot, but by the SMALLEST margin that has ever resulted in flipping the house.
Not a recipe for a landslide.
The other alternative is that Republicans gerrymander red states such that they have the edge in nearly all districts but the electorate swing is slightly larger than that edge.
Put simply if democrats actually want a “landslide” they NEED republicans to engage in very large scale gerrymandering to create large numbers of districts where the advantage for republicans is smaller than the swing in votes.
The issue in this supreme court decision is NOT gerrymandering.
It is not political – despite the left painting it that way.
The issue is whether you can correct racism by engaging in racism.
S2 of the VRA when enacvted violated the 145th and 15th amendment.
SCOTUS noted that AT THE TIME – that is la liberal court 60 years ago.;
They improperly allowed violatging the 14th and 15th amendment as a remedy for past racism on a TEMPORARY basis.
SCOTUS was Open about the violation of the 14th and 15th amendment and the temporary nature of allowing a violation. SCOTUS was WRONG then. Numerous times since 1965 SCOTUS has said – the time limit in the VRTA has expired and granting an extension is a very temporary measure.
With this decision SCOTUS finally said – this has gone on far too long.
You can not fix racism by engaging in racism.
The constitution – specifically the 14th and 15th amendment are the issue in this case – not Gerrymandering.
6 members of the court got this right. The question is why didn’t the other 3 ?
You do not fix racism with more racism.
Should states that created districts that violate the 145th and 15th amendment redraw their maps immediately ?
Absolutely. We should never have had elections with these racist maps.
Are all the states with racist maps going to fix those in time for the next election ?
They should, but I do not know. We will see.
Of course democrats will impeach Trump again (and again) if they win the house.
So what ? All that proves is our founders made a mistake. When they constrained the basis for impeachment they provided no review to that decision. Turley is correct that democrats impeachments of Trump do not meet the constitutional requirements. But because the decision of the house to impeach is not constitutionally reviewable,
the house can impeach for any stupid reason they wish. And democrats will.
Will democrats impeaching Trump if they take the house matter – ROFL.
Outside of left wing nuts no one will care.
If Democrats do not also take the senate – which is highly unlikely, then the senate will not likely even conduct a trial.
If Democrats DO take the senate – they will have a tiny margin. It is still likely there may be no trial.
Do you think Fetterman is voting for a spectacle that will hurt democrats ?
But even if there is a trial – you are not likely to get 50 votes much less the super-majority needed.
All you will succeed in ios proving to voters that democrats are politically corrupt.
But go ahead. Do your damnedest.
Personally I do not think this blue wave is materializing.
First most of the negatives at the moment are under Trump’s control.
Trump can end the conflict with Iran whenever he wishes.
It will take time for gas prices to drop – but they will drop long before November.
the Atlanta Fed reported 2Q growth projections of 3.5% – if that holds Republicans go into the mid terms with a STRONG economy. Bad mouthing the economy does not actually make the economy bad – just as Democrats claiming the economy was good under Biden and Obama did not make it good.
There is a claim that democrat voters are more energized.
But your protests are getting weaker and weaker.
And the perception of the democrat party and violent and dangerous is growing.
It does nto matter if YOU believe that. What matters is if Republican voters come ourt to vote because they see Democrats as dangerous.
Regardless the outcome of the 2026 electiosn depend on turnout.
USUALLY the voters for the out of power party are more successful at motivating their voters.
But DNC leadership is in total chaos. There is a civil war going on in the democratic party and increasingly Democrat Primary voters are chosing the most unelectable candidates.
Further the news is fuill of stories of democrat incompetence and fraud.
And the 2025 Wins for democrats are backfiring. Mamdami has been the gift that gives on giving to republicans
Spanberger ran as a moderate but is pissing off voters by governing as a left wing nut.
In myriads of ways we have everything in palce for a Democrat Fizzle in 2026.
We are going to have to see in November.
Predictions now are very premature.
What an embarrassment Justice Jackson is. She needs to quit SCOTUS and run for office, since she is a political activist. Another disaster from the Biden Admin.
Do you think that there are DEI med school graduates as unqualified for their job as Ketanji? Ask yourself that when you meet your surgeon.
yes, and too many F1 visas.
So true.
@Billy
Might be a double post, and if so, I apologize:
I don’t think, I know. I refuse to see a doctor who is not at least my age.
Hate to break it to the doctors here, and I know there are a few, and I respect you, but get your heads out of the sand: your modern system for creating doctors is creating something else. This applies doubly to PAs. Sorry, but it does, across the board, and they aren’t just ignorant, but they are lazy.
I should not show up to a medical appointment knowing more than the practitioner, but that is far too often the case today. They may have spent more money than everyone else, but they sure aren’t better, and ego, entitlement, or prestige do not not help people get better in medical scenarios. They can in fact, end in catastrophe. That often results in lawsuits; it is about to get very ugly, and again, due to coddling, incompetence, the right amount of money, and wholly fabricated ‘prestige’.
Calling the exoskeletons of marine mollusks “the deadliest weapons known to man,” on Tuesday Donald J. Trump signed an executive order banning seashells.
“Now the American people can sleep well at night, knowing that their president has protected them from death by seashell,” Trump told reporters during the Oval Office signing ceremony.
“Obama didn’t do anything about seashells, and neither did Biden,” he said. “I’m the only president who would do this.”
Trump used the ceremony to defend his increasingly unpopular war in the Middle East, declaring, “Iran must never be allowed to have seashells.”
Because guns don’t kill people.
Seashells kill people.
They should be in the same deadly category as Subway sandwiches.
I feel safer already
Department of Justice – Sea Shell Victims Unit.
Coming soon to CBS!
Anonymous just proved you Can’t Fix Stupid.
Keep proving that left wing nuts are humor impaired.
“It’s the [conspiratorial coalescence], stupid!”
– James Carville
Turley,
What a ridiculous take!
If 32 days is customary to wait for the losing party to request a rehearing, how in the world can one justify deviating from this procedure because no intent to request a rehearing was expressed in the first few days?
Do you or Alito have any statistics to demonstrate that such requests are only made in the first few days anyway?
If not, deviating from standard procedure is an action taken by the Court, which, as you acknowledged, has the effect of helping one political party at the expense of the other party. That is the action that Jackson is accurately calling out.
. . . how in the world can one justify deviating from this procedure . . .?
The procedure is a default, but it can be altered if a party requests it and has a good reason for the request. The rule itself (Rule 45.3) contemplates such modifications. Here is the order put down by the Court:
To permit the losing party time to file a petition for rehearing, the Clerk of Court ordinarily waits 32 days after the entry of the Court’s judgment to send the opinion and a certified copy of the judgment to the clerk of the lower court. Sup. Ct. Rule 45.3. This period is subject to adjustment; the default applies “unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time.” Ibid. The Callais appellees have asked for the Clerk to issue the judgment forthwith so that “in the event of a judicial remedy,” the District Court may “oversee an orderly process.” App. 3. Appellant Louisiana does not oppose this application. And while the Robinson appellants oppose it, they have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment. Thus, the application to issue the judgment forthwith presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted.
The Robinson plaintiffs, however, challenged that claim in a request filed Tuesday, asking the court to recall the mandate because the court’s order was based on inaccurate information:
The sole basis cited in the Order for granting Appellees’ Application and issuing the judgment forthwith was that “[Robinson Appellants] have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.” However, in the second sentence of Appellants’ opposition to the Application, Appellants requested “the opportunity to consider seeking rehearing.”
Additionally a request would have profited nothing else except the 32 day wait — I’m glad Alito responded to such cheat . Play the game and we’ll finagle it …thieves.
Because the three witches already delayed the opinion.
What is ridiculous.
This case has ALREADY had a rehearing.
It is not going to get another.
Neither the losers or the winners are going to request a rehearing.
The winners got what they wanted.
The losers stand zero chance of getting ANOTHER rehearing.
You ask for statistics – how many times has SCOTUS ever granted a 2nd rehearing ?
As to your first claim – yes the parties in nearly all legal disputes express their intent to oppose a decision almost instant with the decision. It is very very very rare to wait for the last minute and then primarily because the goal is delay not winning
Next you say a 30 day delay is customary.
Customary is NOT a rule.
Your lack of understanding of the Court system is extensive. Yes, intent is generally expressed as a petition for reconsideration generally requires planning on the part of the Court, in particular for staff to research the grounds stated for reconsideration to determine if the reconsideration should be granted.. In addition, the rule referenced is a guideline but does allow for lesser or more time to finalize the opinion dependent on circumstances. In this case, the circumstances are (1) use a map that has been held unconst to adhere to a formality, or (2) to recognize the need for La. to move with alacrity. The only reason to delay finalizing the opinion is a desire to hold an election that will be in the courts for years after because it was held based on a map already deemed illegal.
This is what happens when DEI becomes an appointment criteria with everything. She has pretty brown skin and a uterus, but also the brain the size of a walnut.
bigger than your pea brain
Oh sure, Billy. Black women can’t possibly be qualified for the court.
Judge Janice Rogers Brown would have been a great pick.
Billy’s comment related to one person only. You read more into it than he said.
The demand for racism exceeds its supply.
@Anonymous
Typical. No one even mentioned that. You can be black and be an idiot just as sure as you can be white and be an idiot. Good attempt at incitement, though. Do you realize yet that this no longer works, and most of us vote accordingly? Does that mean, in your tiny mind, the only solution is to kill the rest of us, because we are smarter than you and you just can’t coexist with that fact?
Nobody gives a toss about anything other than the fact that she was clearly installed and has the legal brain the size of a pea, though since yours is the size of a grain of rice, that may seem large to you. This was Paris Hilton years ago, and she is likely still white; we made fun of her too. You are pathetic, and that the vast majority of us think so. Go back o your parents’ or more likely, grandparents’, basement.
Of course they can.
Ones that can answer the question “what is a woman”
By dissenting, Justice Jackson goes to battle for the use of an unconstitutional map. She seems unfamiliar with the saying that it is wise to pick one’s battles. She wants to die on the hill of promoting lawlessness. Justice Alito’s response is worth quoting in full:
The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered. The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional. The dissent does not claim that it is now too late for the state legislature or the District Court to adopt a new map that complies with the Constitution. Nor does the dissent assert that it is not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map. Instead, the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action. One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting.
The first is compliance with the 32-day default rule set out in this Court’s Rule 45.3, but as the Court’s order explains, there is good reason to depart from the default rule here. The principal reason for the 32-day default rule is to give a losing party time to prepare a petition for rehearing. But here, the Robinson appellees have not expressed an intent to file such a petition, much less set out any ground on which a petition might be based. And the need for prompt action by this Court is clear. The date scheduled for the beginning of early voting in the primary election has already passed. The congressional districting map enacted by the legislature has been held to be unconstitutional, and the general election will be held in just six months.
The second reason offered by the dissent is that we should allow the 32-day period to run out in order to “avoid the appearance of partiality.” Post, at 3 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). But the dissent does not explain why its insistence on unthinking compliance with Rule 45.3’s default rule does not create the appearance of partiality (by running out the clock) on behalf of those who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map.
The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power. See post, at 4 (“And just like that, those principles give way to power”). That is a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge. What principle has the Court violated? The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?
The dissent accuses the Court of “unshackl[ing]” itself from “constraints.” It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint.
That is blatantly false.
Can you quote the section of her dissent that justifies the bold language above?
Why not read the dissent yourself? I started but it was such a ludicrous partisan screed I stopped.
Oldmanfromkansas, that’s just Alito throwing a tantrum because he got called out for breaking his own rules. He has no defense for doing so. He’s being a hypocrite and he knows it.
Do you also interpret Jackson’s dissent as throwing a tantrum because now Louisiana will have time to replace its illegal map with a legal one?
Can you not read?
OT
Obama strikes again!
_________________________
“Judge apologizes to suspect in jail for White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting case”
“A federal judge apologized to Cole Allen, the suspect in the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting case, for what he saw as overly restrictive and punitive conditions at the D.C. jail where he’s being held. CBS News’ Katrina Kaufman reports.”
– CBS News
_______________
United States Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui was appointed by Judge Beryl A. Howell, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who was nominated by President Barack Obama on July 14, 2010.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
I find it revealing that Justice Jackson began her dissenting comment with, “The Court’s decision in these cases has spawned chaos in
the State of Louisiana.” Does she think that by delaying the announcement by one month, the chaos will vanish? Would the state not be better positioned to address the “chaos” to know sooner rather than later that the state is violating the constitution?
Procedurally, is the release of the decision not something that is brought up in the justice’s conference? If so, that discussion must have been icy.
Louisiana was already in the process of sending out ballots to residents in the military. That’s how close they were to the primary elections. So ‘yes’, postponing the primaries is highly disruptive!
So you’d prefer they proceed with unconstitutional confessional districts because of an inconvenience? Flip the parties and see if you’d still agree.
She perfectly represents what the modern left represent – ignorance, allegiance to ideology, corruption, and hostility, and she perfectly represents what the left WILL do to our courts in a heartbeat if they ever again have majority power. This is no longer a laughing matter. I don’t like the infighting, but thank goodness there are still some signs of spine in the courts. Everyone who is NOT the modern left, and that includes independents, libertarians, et. al., not just conservatives – it’s time to push back, because the dems are done following the rules, respecting the law, or playing fair, and they will not ever stop.
Following the rules and respecting the law, after the court itself broke its own rules and doctrines. James is an idiot.
What rule or doctrine did the Court break? The rule itself states that the default applies “unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time.” Therefore, shortening the time does not violate the rule. So, what rule and doctrine are you referring to?
@Anonymous
Thank you! Lets me know I’m on the right track. You have a great day.
No rules was broken.
This case already had a rehearing.
There will not be another.
The decision was 6-3
The next battle will be who actually has the legal authority to do the maps. I lost my case Harper v Moore I think it was 2022 everyone should take a look at the dissents( Alito and Thomas especially). State Supreme Courts better be damn careful about involving themselves in the actual map drawing process especially whenna state constitution say that’s a legislative act.
(From personal experience Justice Alito is the best justice on that court, followed by Thomas of course.
BUT GO FIND AND READ HARBOR V MOORE US SUPREME COURT WEBSITE
Her statements about want to do what she feels not what the interpretation is under the existing body of law including The Constitution and Supreme Court
The rules governing the impartiality of Supreme Court Justices come from three primary sources: the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and the recently adopted Code of Conduct for Justices.
1. The Constitutional Basis: “Good Behavior” The ultimate rule originates in Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The Rule states that Justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” This was designed to ensure judicial independence. By giving Justices lifetime tenure (so long as they maintain “good behavior”), the Founders intended to insulate them from political pressure, allowing them to rule based on the law rather than public opinion or the whims of the President or Congress. Re enforcement: the only constitutional mechanism for violating “good behavior” is impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate.
2. The Statutory Rule: 28 U.S.C. § 455 While the Constitution provides the framework, federal law provides specific instructions on when a Justice must step aside (recuse themselves) to remain impartial. Rule: Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Triggers: The law lists specific reasons for recusal including: 1) Personal bias or prejudice concerning a party: previous involvement in the case as a lawyer or witness; financial interest in the subject matter or a party in the case; or family members being involved in the case.
The Conflict: Historically, the “rule of necessity” sometimes allows a Justice to stay on a case if their recusal would leave the Court without a quorum (the minimum number of judges needed to decide a case), even if a conflict exists.
3. The “New” Code of Conduct (2023) For most of U.S. history, the Supreme Court did not have a formal written code of ethics, unlike lower federal courts. This changed on November 13, 2023, when the Court issued its first official Code of Conduct for Justices.
1: A Justice should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
2: A Justice should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
3: A Justice should perform the duties of office fairly and impartially. It explicitly states that a Justice should not be swayed by “partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.”
4. Historical Context & Enforcement Historically, the Supreme Court followed “unwritten” rules or looked to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (which applies to lower courts) as a guide. The primary criticism of the new 2023 Code is that it is self-policed. Unlike lower court judges, who can be disciplined by judicial councils, there is no higher authority that can force a Supreme Court Justice to recuse themselves or punish them for a code violation, other than the nuclear option of impeachment. Each Justice ultimately decides for themselves whether their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
The higher authority would be the congress, but there aren’t enough who would support Jackson’s impeachment. While that could be done on impartiality, it should be for incompetence.
Time is ripe to invalidate her autopen appointment.
I do have one quibble with this:
She further said that, rather than maintain “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.”
Jackson’s dissent doesn’t say anything about maintaining the appearance of partiality. It says: “To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures.”
In this context, maintaining and avoiding are opposites.
P.S. I was motivated to look up the opinion and check this because, even though Justice Jackson herself is low-IQ, I got to thinking: can her clerks really have been that dumb? I mean, at the Scotus level even a silly, mentally-dull Justice gets the best clerks.
The actual sentence from Jackson’s opinion that I quoted, while at least getting the “avoiding” the appearance of partiality right, does have a different flaw. Again, she said:
To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures.
The idea that Scotus should “take no position” is baffling. First of all, Scotus’s job is to take a position on the lawfulness of the districts. Secondly, once the majority has ruled – in this case that the racially gerrymandered districts were unconstitutional – it also has to take the position that lawfulness must prevail over unlawfulness. Otherwise it is not a court of law but a court of roll the dice on whether the law should actually prevail.
Upstatefarmer, as usual you misread what justice Jackson is saying.
When Jackson spoke of staying on the “sidelines,” she was referring specifically to the procedural timeline for making that ruling final. Under Supreme Court Rule 45.3, there is a standard 32-day waiting period before a judgment is sent to the lower courts.
Jackson’s point was that by breaking its own rule to expedite the judgment, the Court was actively helping one side (the state government) “run out the clock” to cancel an ongoing election and draw a new map mid-stream. She argued that following the default procedure—waiting the 32 days—is what “neutral” courts do to avoid the appearance of helping a political ally.
She absolutely correct. But Turley doesn’t want to or can’t really argue against it because he knows she’s correct on the merits. So he attacks her character instead. That’s a dead give-away that she’s right.
You say the court must act immediately because “lawfulness must prevail”. However, in election law, the Purcell Principle—frequently cited by the conservative majority—explicitly states that even if a map is potentially unconstitutional, courts should not change the rules too close to an election to avoid “chaos”. Jackson is pointing out the obvious problem with “acting immediately”. It is based on the conservative’s own reasoning why lower courts should not issue rulings that affect elections so close to them. Here we have the court granting a ruling doing exactly that. Alito is mad because Justice Jackson is calling out the hypocrisy and he can’t really say he is not being a hypocrite.
X, why do you resort ot cheap shot rhetoric. The conversations here are mostly objective and enjoyable, but then you proffer your opinions.
There are plenty of cheap shots from everyone else directed at Justice Jackson. Since this is a free speech forum everyone is fair game, no?
Sometimes the truth is harsh and calling out a hypocrite by name is fair game.
The shots at Jackson are not cheap – she is a moron.
You say that you are right on the merits – but even a cursory read of the rule proves that wrong.
The rule has a number of exceptions – multiple ones of which have been met here.,
The supreme court almost never grants a petition for rehearing – they already did ONCE in this case.
Rehearings if grants virtually NEVER change the results.
I have not been able to find a single instance of SCOTUS granting a 2nd rehearing ever.
If you have one – please provide it.
The parties in this case indicated they are NOT seeking a rehearing.
The losers would be REQUIRED to certify that the rehearing was NOT for the purpose of delay.
A petition to SCOTUS for the purpose of delay violates the rules.
You claim that changes to elections close to the election are disfavored.
Fine but that is NOT relevant to THIS case. It was NOT an argument made to the court.
It is not a factor in this decision.
AS states decide whether they will draw new maps for the 2026 election – the left will be FRee to make a Purcell challenge to that redistricting.
The courts and supreme court will decide that issue WHEN it is legitimately before them.
It was NOT a question in this case.
SCOTUS has decided that racist districts are illegal under the 14th and 15th amendments.
A decision they have been saying was coming for 60 years.
You and Jackson have the cart before the horse.
To the extgent the supreme court has any duty in this case it is to decide this case as expeditiously as possible so that there is the least possible oportunity for chaos before the election.
It is now up to states if they wish to redistrict NOW to comply with the decision or wait until after the november election.
If they redistrict now – Democrats will challenge the new maps using your arguments.
They may or may not win.
If a state does NOT redistrict now – it will face a legal challenge from republicans – the state and democrats will be free to make your arguments. And republicans will counter that it is democrats that are causing delay and chaos – as you did in 2020.
And the Purcell principle was cited by Alito in TX back in 2025 bc THAT was too close to the 2026 election. But in neighboring LA, I guess time works differently.
There was already a month’s long delay in releasing the ruling already.
32 days isn’t an ironclad rule. There are exceptions that Alito outlined. Would you prefer Louisiana proceed with unconditional congressional districts?
‘Under Supreme Court Rule 45.3, there is a standard 32-day waiting period before a judgment is sent to the lower courts.”
And the rule has multiple provisions to dispense with that waiting period.
The purpose of the waiting period is to allow the parties to request a rehearing.
Few cases ever get a rehearing. almost none get TWO rehearings.
SCOTUS has been telegraphing this decision for 40 years. This is not the first time SCOTUS has addressed forced racial gerrymandering in S2 of the VRA. They have REPEATEDLY noted it violates the 14th and 15th amendment but allowed it initially because it was limited in duration. more that 25 years ago SCOTUS warned the states that they were going to end this practice. 60 years after the VRA passed and 35 years after S2 Expired SCOTUS has finally said enough is enough.
I can not trhink of a case that SCOTUS has telegraphed that it was going to overturn this far in advance.
Nor was it the minority inm past decisions that said there is a clock on this – the Majority has said S2 of the VRA is time limited since it passed.
“Jackson’s point was that by breaking its own rule”
The court did not break a rule – they followed several of the allowed exceptions.
SCOTUS decided to FINALLY enforce the 14th and 15th amendment.
They have been saying they were going to do this for 60 years.
The only question EVER was WHEN this decison would finally come down.
Had the court followed the constitution S2 of the VRA would have been declared unconstitutional 60 years ago.
“to expedite the judgment”
Following the constitution is the RULE. When constitutional rights are violated such decisions are frequently retroactive.
SCOTUS could have declared the existing racially gerrymandered districts unconstitutional rhetroactively and found that existing represenatatives are not constitutionally elected.
They were not going to do that. But there is no good reason at all not to give the states the most time to fix past unconstitutional conduct going forward as quickly as possible
While no rule was actually violated – even if it had been – the constitution takes precidence over the rules of the court.
“the Court was actively helping one side (the state government)”
Correct – the side that wanted to follow the constitution.
““run out the clock” ”
Actually the opposite – it is the left trying to run out the clock and have one more unconstitutional election before a provision of a law that was unconstitutional when passed 60 years ago was finally killed.
“She absolutely correct”
False – she and YOU have injected politics into this.
The VRA S2 was unconstitutional when passed.
SCOTUS has been saying that for 60 years. But they have allowed that – while warning that the clock was running out for 60 years.,
This SCOTUS has finally had enough with the forced left wing nut racism inherent in the VRA S2.
It is now toast.
This case already had a rehearing it never should have had.
Does this effect the 2026 election in a partisan way ? Abvoluletely.
We have been conducting racist and partisan elections for 60 years – this is the 30th congressional election since the VRA S2 passed. FINALLY we are ending the biased and unconstitutional racism for political purposes.
It can not happen soon enough.
It should have happened 60 years ago.
This likely gave democrats hundreds of house seats they would have lost in elections conducted without racism.
All Alito is saying is your not getting one more unconstitutional and racist election.
If being antiracist is political – then this is political.
But so were all the justices that held their noses and voted for this unconstitutional and racist abomination for 60 years.
“But Turley doesn’t want to or can’t really argue against it because he knows she’s correct on the merits. So he attacks her character instead. That’s a dead give-away that she’s right.”
What merits ? You are arguing that a rule that has numerous exceptions that is only followed SOME of the time, is absolute ANT Trump’s the constitution the 145th and 15th amendments.
That is a piss poor argument.
To be clear – what YOU and Jackson are arguing happens ALL THE TIME.
My wife has a case pending with the courts right now. There is ZERO doubt that she will win this appeal.
The error on the part of the courts is black letter and clear.
But the court is delaying the oppinion for as long as possible and the illegally convicted defendant remains in jail until the case is finally thrown out.
Courts delaying to punish one party is commonplace.
It is also wrong.
You say that Turley is wrong on the merits – that is clear BS – the rule you cite allows for exactly this under exactly these conditions AND there has already been a rehearing. There will not be another. The decision was 6-3.
If you want to rant about the merits – Why did it take 60 years to overturn a part of a law that Everyone including SCOTUS has KNOWN was in violation of the constitution for 60 years.
“You say the court must act immediately because “lawfulness must prevail””
No the court CAN acty immediately as they have AND follow the rules and constitution.
“However, in election law, the Purcell Principle”
The elections are in November. Primaries are NOT federal elections. There is no provision for a primary in the constitution.
Further it is early may – in 2020 the LEFT was making changes to election laws right up to the day of the election.
They did not START making changes until a disasterous primary in Newark NJ in late may 2020 made it clear that democrats were going to get shellacked in 2020 if they did not find a way to change the way erlections were conducted.
Purcell was about Voter ID – there were no constitutional issues.
You had no problems causing all kinds of chaos in 2020.
Issues that remain screwed up even now.
@oldman
I don’t disagree, but now her words are on record, and I very much doubt it is her dictating the script. The modern left follow orders, they don’t think. Ketanji is likely an actress, no different from AOC. The dems hope we don’t notice.