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
Time for America to apologize, as one nation under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, to say we are so damn sorry to all those enslaved in a despicable breach of everything we proudly proclaimed was our backbone, those qualities which established our RAISON D’ÊTRE.
Meanwhile…
“Fulton County, Georgia, is trying to fend off a subpoena from a federal prosecutor in North Carolina seeking contact information for thousands of poll workers from the 2020 election,” The Guardian’s George Chidi reported on Tuesday. “The subpoena, issued in April by Dan Bishop, the interim US attorney of North Carolina’s middle district, demands the county provide rosters of election staff members who served in the November 2020 election, including their identification by name, position, residential and email address and personal telephone number.”
Fulton County attorneys are responding by trying to quash the federal grand jury subpoena by saying it is a politically motivated act of harassment, adding that even if election fraud had occurred in 2020 it would now be past the statute of limitations.
Nothing to see here. Just a fascist government trying to prevent an election from happening where he will lose.
I do not live in Ohio, nor did I ever. But I am watching some national primary results around the country, and just watched the winner of Ohio’s Democratic primary for Governor, Somebody “Acton” (the surname) who will run against Republican Vivek Ramaswamy. (just looked it up. Amy Acton.)
She speaks very much like Spanberger in Virginia. And-bringing full circle, Justice Jackson speaks just like they do.
They feed off each others’ speeches. They are emboldened by each other’s impassioned calls for “rage.” AS Jackson readily admitted, she wants to use her Court opinions to tell everyone “how she feels” about certain issues–
I’m looking at her dissent in virtually all of these redistricting/elections cases where race v. partisanship issues manifest.
One is generally legal; one is not.
Is her race the primary factor that informs her opinions? – or is it her political partisanship? I believe it is her race.
Lin: “Is her race the primary factor that informs her opinions? – or is it her political partisanship? I believe it is her race.”
I think you are right. The media and the Democrats have grown and fertilized race grievance a,o
Mossad has failed to spark a revolution in Iran.
The Great Persian people have failed to carry out a revolution in Iran.
France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic helped Americans conduct their revolution.
America helped Israel and the Great Persian People immensely…to what end?
The American people can’t blame President Trump for the failures of Israel and Persia, who could not possibly have been given more.
I’m sure this is on topic in some way but just can’t see it
Jackson just fundamentally doesn’t understand the Constitution or she just doesn’t like it. Neither of those are suitable for her job.
The comments we’re seeing today is an ugly spectacle. This thread reads like a torch-bearing mob of good ole boys is chasing Justice Jackson. It makes a total mockery of Turley’s book! The commenters here are exactly the rabble Turley pretends to condemn.
Complete and total BS. Jackson is a dolt, and an political activist. Has nothing to do with your imagined mob. It has to do with reality. She’s not up to the job, and she’s both arrogant and insluting. Those are the facts. You left-wing nuts can’t handle the truth.
Can anyone square Alito in 2026 with his vote in the Alabama case 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.
And can we presume the Purcell principle is dead?
Justice Samuel Alito heavily invoked the Purcell principle to temporarily block a lower court ruling that had rejected Texas’s redrawn congressional map last year (for elections THIS year). Alito argued that changing maps close to an election—on the “eve of an election”—creates voter confusion and disrupts administration, reinforcing the status quo under the Purcell guideline. But now after votes were already cast in LA, he doesn’t even make a reference to Purcell.
You obviously are very eager to suggest Alito is somehow being inconsistent. But the actions you mention have their own standards, which are different from the standards used to decide the Callais case. You have to give more information about what was going on at the time that could have warranted a stay of the lower court’s ruling. As Isaac Asimov said, “Insufficient data for meaningful response.” And your resting on the Purcell principle is somewhat ironic given that Jackson wants to delay another month, whereas the majority wants there to be no further delay.
Jackson is illiterate.
Jackson is illiterate.
Identical situations. Only difference is the political party that the actions taken by Alito et al benefit.
If the rule is that we discard a map which has been determined to be unconstitutional should not be used in an election even after voting has begun, then SCOTUS needs to overrule Purcell and explain why its actions in AL and TX.
If there’s a point at which action is too late, then they must distinguish these cases.
That’s how the law should work. But the only rule seems to be – What is the outcome that benefits the GOP? We will go with that one!
The Purcell principle, like the Pirates code, is more like guidelines than actual rules .. .
Nope, not identical as I noted above. Maybe you just don’t understand the legal system and the difference between a case that has been heard by the Supreme Court and one that hasn’t?
Ok educate me. Is it case by a lower court not binding and authoritative absent an reversal by a higher court?
Alito IS being deliberately inconsistent.
False, he is actually fgollowing botht he constitution and the rules.
It is Jackson that is not.
Wuith respect to your “purcell” claim – that was NOT an issue in thew case before them – which started long enough ago that it was clearly NOT an issue at the time.
Courts – including SCOTUS tend NOT toi decide issues that are NOT before them.
Democrats WILL get to make the claim that new maps can not be applied this close to an election.
It is virtually certain they will file those claims the moment new maps appear.
The federal courts will get to weigh in on that – and it is likely that SCOTUS will get the final word on the emergency docket soon enough.
But that is NOT now.
Your saying Alito is inconsistent by not deciding an issue that was not before him.
While Jackson is just throwing things at the wall hoping something will stick.
I would further note there is an excellent reason for NOT deciding the “purcell” claim now – asidfe from but related to “it is not a question in THIS case”
The Purcell claim itself will be a complicated issue.
There is no specific deadline for changes to elections.
Which is appropriate.
All changes are not the same.
While what democrats did immediately before the 2020 election never should have been allowed.
There ARE changes that can be made days before an election and there are changes that can not be made as much as a year before an election.
The Question in this case was is the racist gerrymandering of the VRAS2 cxonsatitutional.
Given that courts since the 60’s have said NO, but we will allow it for a SHORT time – that question should have been easy to answer.
SCOTUS was NOT asked can Lousiana alter its district map in May of an election year.
They were only asked if the VRAS2 map imposed by the lower courts was constitutional.
SCOTUS answered no CORRECTLY – It is Jackson that does not get that.
You rant about following the rules on notice to lower courts. Buit those rules specifically allow ANY justice to direct that the ruling be forwarded to lower courts. It also allowes any Party to ask for the lower courtt to be notified earlier. And the delay is to allow the parties to ask for a rehearing =- and both parties have said they will not. And infact COULD NOT – there is no new constitutional issue that no one has thought of in 60 years,
This case has already had one rarely granted rehearing. Requesting another would require the lawyers to certify that their purpose is NOT to delay – which they can not do.
Unless you can come up with a new valid constitutional argument that was NOT briefed to any lower court or SCOTUS reegarding this case – there will be no rehearing and YOUR ignoring the exceptions to the rules is merely to delay – which is unethical.
SCOTUS decided the question before it.
That question was Is the lower court mandated redistricting constitutional and the answer was NO!
If you wish to challenge LA issuing a new map NOW – that is a new issue – not before the court yet.
With certainty the DNC will challenges states that decide to redistrict NOW.
I am not going to address at this instant, how that will go, and neither shoulfd Alito and Jackson was wrong to raise the issue – she is NOT an advocate for the DNC – they can file their own cases.
When that issue is raised – as it surely will LOTS of factors will be considered.
The start of the original case will be relevant.
It is arguable that LA and Republicans can not be punished because lower courts and lawyers got this issue Wrong. Arguably it is those Lower Courts and Lawyers who caused the delay.
Contra your claim the Purcel case involved Voter ID – and excellent idea, but not a constitutional question.
This case hinged on constitutional rights.
I noted before there is no absolute deadline for changes to elections.
“Too Late” depends on the time left, the size of the change, who is responsible for the delay, the degree of confusion likely to result, and the importance of the issue – with constitutional violations being extremely important.
FIRST State must chose whether to redistrict or not.
Then either the DNC or the RNC will have to challenge those decisions.
Then All the factors above – and then some will have to be weighed by lower courts.
And likely the supreme court will have to make a final decision on their emergency docket
YOU and Jackson PRESUME you already know all the factors in that decision and how to weigh them.
But you don’t – and that is why SCOTUS rarely if ever decides issues not before it.
“Courts – including SCOTUS tend NOT toi decide issues that are NOT before them.”
John, can you remind me how the lower courts addressed the 15th Amendment claim? Oh wait, they didn’t!
This Court clearly does not care about that rule.
The only people that square it are the people paid the big bucks and given the authority to square it.
I would think Alito would point out a material distinction between the two cases that you gloss over. In Callais the matter was fully briefed and an opinion issued by the Court. In the Alabama case there was only a district court ruling. SCOTUS had not considered an appeal at the time. I would think that the difference between where the two cases were in the litigation process would be an important consideration that could distinguish the two cases. But you want to ignore that in an attempt to make a political point.
What I do like about this is the left loses again. cry harder KBJ. I swear dems really are making the decision easier the deeper they get into their insincere positions.
No I love it.
That’s what you get when the justice is appointed not on qualifications and knowledge of the law, but rather on skin color and sex.
Before her nomination, Justice Jackson was:
– a federal appeals court judge:
-a federal District Court judge;
-Vice Chairman of the Federal Sentencing Commission;
-a Federal Public Defender;
She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School; magna cum laude from Harvard University and was a Harvard Law Review Editor. In attaining these achievements, she no doubt beat out many white men.
Justice Jackson is better qualified by virtue of the breadth and diversity of her experience than any of the other justices on the Supreme Court and more qualified than Turley.
It’s pathetic that Turley writes this kind of piece that draws this kind of racist and misogynist hatred.
That makes it all the worse.
Can we say D E I ?
Anon: “She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School; ”
Harvard gives almost everyone an A. Recently a proposal to have a normal grading system was opposed by students as being racist.
A Harvard diploma isn’t quite s**t yet, but almost. Graduating from Harvard is like shoplifting a diploma.
They actually don’t have grades at Harvard law.
Anon– “They actually don’t have grades at Harvard law”
I didn’t know that. How do they choose students who merit Suma Cum Laude?
Skin color or who’s the daddy, or trans?
Certainly not actual merit.
They charge too much for their certificate if they are going to operate like a woke drive through McDonalds.
“Would you like fries with your diploma order?”
Obviously all of those awards and accolades were AA, DEI.
Good lord, the criticism of KBJ is valid and based entirely on her performance, her words, her opinions, her actions, ie queer Broadway musicals, standing while Grammy’s applaud “F*ck ICE”, etc. She has no understanding of her ‘job’ on the Supreme Court. She is an entitled ignoramus, as evidenced by the words that come out of her mouth. A DEI dumass for all to see.
She’s dragging down the court as well as the progressive cause, and she’s too stupid to know it.
Criticism of her is legit and has nothing to do with “racist misogynistic hatred.” Get a life…
So explain why her own lib judges have trashed her comments.
If you posit that her race and sex did not give her a leg up every step of her way of the ladder you are a liar or an idiot or both. Kbj with all of her education does not know the definition of a woman. Illiterate and or liars do not belong on the Supreme Court.
Leftist take over of the country.
are elections in states with unconstitutional districts certifiable or are those election results automatically null and void?
I would think they’re certifiable if the state did not have enough time to develop new maps and pass them into law. But the next election would then have to use new maps.
Thousands of votes have already been cast in LA. If the Purcell principle – which Alito invoked in TX last fall – means anything then it should have been relevant here. Of course, Alito conveniently forgot about it this time.
Sadly, yes.
The next time Democrats hold both houses of Congress, and the White House, they can be expected to expand the Supreme Court, and pack it with justices just like Justice Katanji Jackson.
I have great respect for justices who do not allow personal politics or preferences to cloud their judgement on the law.
Justice Jackson, by contrast, is a political activist willing to abuse her position of great authority to serve the Democrat Party’s interests. This was apparent during her Confirmation Hearing, when candidate Jackson refused to answer what a woman was, claiming she was not a biologist, and thus unqualified.
Anyone who claims not to know the difference between males and females of her own species is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, and judge any case on its merits.
Karen – she lied in saying she didn’t know what a woman is. So she’s a liar and a political activist.
But she did, perhaps unintentionally, concede that the question of what a women is, is determined by biological science, not by psychological fads. If she had had her wits about her, she would have suggested putting the question to a vote. But alas, she is dim-witted.
Old Man—Nope. That aging bottle blondie Home Ec major from Tennessee—-Marsha Blackburn—tried to hamstring Justice Jackson with a “gotcha” question during her confirmation hearing, knowing that there would be cases involving transgenders coming before the Court. No matter what her answer was, it could be used against Justice Jackson. So, Justice Jackson wisely demurred. MAGA still tries to use her demurrer against her— like your comment.
What I find offensive is a dimwitted racist Home Ec major having the temerity to try to trap the most qualified person ever nominated to the SCOTUS with a stupid question that had nothing to do with her qualification to be a Supreme Court justice. She should confine herself to cooking and baking.
^ With ever comment, Gigi demonstrates her serious mental illness ^
Leftists are mentally deranged monsters. Gigi proves that every day.
Clearly Professor Turley is not reading the filings in this case. Despite what Alito said, a filing was made by NAACP to seek time to consider a filing for reconsideration.
This crucial fact completely undermines Turley’s argument and legitimizes Jackson’s dissent. Like she said, only twice has the Court in its history done something like this. So much for Mr. History and Tradition.
Turley, maybe a scholar should read the primary sources before spewing this drivel.
And yet Jackson, in her dissent, never contended that the Court’s characterization — that “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” – was false. As I pointed out below, Justice Jackson was the one person with the greatest incentive to challenge that characterization, yet she did not. And as Daniel pointed out, asking for time to consider doing something is not the same as expressing an intent to do that thing.
So before you insult the host of this blog and falsely accuse him of “spewing drivel” in your arrogant, cocksure way, you should check whether the facts support your position. Here, they do not.
Yes she did. Read it again. She said only twice has the Court waived the waiting period over the objection of the losing party. What the heck do you think that means? She cited the dang filing.
She said, “over a party’s objection.” Nobody denies that the losing party objected in this case. The order even says, “And while the Robinson appellants oppose it, they have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.”
That’s the whole point. Jackson did not challenge the Court’s characterization that, in their objection, the Robinson appellants “not expressed an intent to file such a petition, much less set out any ground on which a petition might be based.”
And praytell what was contained in the objection you acknowledge she referenced?
The friggin request for more time to consider a rehearing filing
So how does that contradict anything that the Court said in its order, or that Alito said in his concurring statement. It doesn’t.
no. you are wrong and this did not happen
Just another example of the infiltration of the far left into our institutions. It started with the universities. Jackson went to Harvard. Then they migrated out of the universities into our institutions. We must fight against this infiltration or our nation will be lost.
Just another example of Turley being a paid MAGA pundit. Today, he is whining because Republicans may not have enough time to rig the midterms to keep Trump and MAGA in power. AND, that will be the fallout–Republican racist rigging is OK. That rigging was the purpose for the Voting Rights Act in the first place. Turley says Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas somehow rightfully are criticizing Justice Jackson. That assumes she is wrong–which she isn’t. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, along with Barrett, are collectively a joke, and the majority of Americans do NOT agree with their radical right-wing views. Never forget how they got onto the SCOTUS–they were first vetted by the ultra right- wing Federalist Society, specifically for the purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade. And, they misrepresented their view of stare decisis and the Roe being settled precedent that had withstood challenges for almost 50 years. That is shameful.
The entire theme of this piece is to try to defend gutting the key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which leveled the playing field for black voters. But MAGA can’t exist with a level playing field, and since Trump and MAGA have a 34% approval rating they are in serious danger of losing power. They cannot win a fair election, and they know it. So they pay a Turley to go after Justice Jackson and to defend Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas who criticized her. MAGA HAS to do everything humanly possible to prevent the blue wave coming in November. In the issue in the case at bar, blacks represent 1/3 of Louisiana citizens, but were gerrymandered by Republicans into just one district of 6. Turley has nothing to say about the fundamental unfairness of this, because that’s what MAGA wants. Previous court rulings based on the Voting Rights Act corrected this injustice, and gave black citizens 2 out of 6 districts–representative of their percentage of Louisiana citizens, so they had a chance for their votes to count and to elect black representatives. Oh, but according to MAGA–that’s racist and therefore unconstitutional, because race was considered in creating this district. In other words, Turley is defending the racist gerrymandering that denied black citizens a voice in Republican states. That is shameful.
AND, now, time is of the essence–the malignant narcissist is panicking because he has been such a profound failure and the lies he told to get the power he is abusing are now obvious even to some of the MAGA faithful. He lied about no new wars–then started bombing Iran based on a lie that he keeps telling–that Iran was poised to send a nuclear bomb our way. This was after he tore up the JCPOA that monitored Iran’s nuclear program–solely because it was a crowning achievement of Obama, and Trump is insanely jealous of Obama. Then, there’s the representation from June, 2025 that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was “totally obliterated”. So, what THAT a lie or is it a lie that Iran was going to nuke us? Both things cannot be true. Our own intelligence said that Iran did not have the capability of sending an intercontinental ballistic missile from over there to the US, and that it did not have a nuclear bomb–so WHY are 13 American service members dead and WHY have billions of taxpayer dollars been spent for bombs? Could it be payback to UAE and Saudia Arabia, rivals of Iran, or payback to wealthy Jews who gave Trump millions? And, Trump even accused the Pope of WANTING Iran to have a nuclear bomb.
Then, there’s the lie about Project 2025–after polls proved most Americans did not approve of it, Trump denied knowing anything about it and then hired the authors of it and began implementing it, signing180 Executive Orders drafted by the authors of Project 2025 on day one. How about the fib that he would lower grocery prices on day one, and the ongoing lies about grocery prices being lower now? Now, gas prices are through the roof, grocery prices are soaring, the economy is tanking, and all Republicans can do is think of ways to prevent probable Democrats from having their voices heard.
Just look at the racist garbage that is posted on this page and the personal attacks against people who disagree with Turley–they can’t argue on principle, so they go ad hominem, just like Trump does. That, too, is shameful, but Turley has chosen go MAGA.
Your arguments
No, Gigi doesn’t have arguments. She has mentally-deranged lunacy, MAGA MAGA MAGA blah blah blah. She dumps 10,000,000 word rambling incoherent lunacy pretty much every day, that nobody ever reads. She is seriously mentally ill.
I hope this loon remains on the Court.
She is a daily reminder how dangerous DEI is.
Imagine this woman in an aviation control tower.
Imagine this woman as your surgeon.
Imagine this woman as your dentist.
Imagine this woman as your child’s math or history or English teacher.
Imagine this woman being rejected for a job at McDonald’s. Okay. That one I can imagine.
Johnathan Turley is constantly decrying this ‘age of rage’ we live in. Yet today’s column invites commenters to direct their White Christian Nationalist rage at Justice Jackson. The usual puppets are all on script questioning Jackson’s presence on the court. Just one stupid comment after another expressing the rage of stupid southern rednecks.
. . . White Christian Nationalist . . .
Nice job outing yourself as a lunatic psychotic Left-wing crazy wing-nut.
And it has nothing to do with race (other than that she was a DEI hire, quite obviously). She has demonstrated her low IQ in so many ways. Nobody disputes that a different black woman Justice would be fine. Such as Janice Rogers Brown.
The demand for racism exceeds its supply.
Oh, of course it has ‘nothing to do with race’. No, no, no, perish the thought. One can easily look beyond the lynch mob level comments and see the insightful wisdom beneath.
The woman is demonstrably low-IQ and should not be on the Supreme Court. There are plenty more intelligent and qualified black women than her.
Again, your demand for racism goes unmet, as it is in short supply among the people you hate and falsely accuse.
Anonymous tool: Turley “invites commenters to direct their White Christian Nationalist rage at Justice Jackson”
Somehow these same folks love Thomas and Sowell and others.
Time to stop regarding black people as untouchable sacred monkeys. They are people responsible for their own actions, good and bad. Jackson is too stupid to contribute anything but clownish comments on the bench. Alito and Thomas are brilliant by contrast. Race isn’t the issue; incompetence vs competence is the issue.
Race isn’t the only issue, but it became an issue because Biden made it be, even before he nominated her.
Autopen nominated her. All of Biden’s judicial nominations should be void until proven otherwise.
As you accuse Turkey of rage – his piece contains none. If anything i thought it restrained. Implied in his opinion, is Jackson’s lack of argument on the basis of the law (what the court is actually seasoned to do) and the lack of his complaint to her on the basis of dissent in the law. Also lacking in Turley’s article is anything about White Christian nationalists… it seems you are the one begging the question and it shows more about this being a troll than any rational argument.
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion = USELESS.
Impeach for cause.
The Robinson plaintiffs, however, challenged Alito’s 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.”
If that’s true, it’s pretty major. Do you have a link to their filing so I can see for myself?
If true, why do you think Jackson would not have disputed the order’s language saying they made no such request, or Justice Alito’s assertion that “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.”
The fact that the Court said what it said, and Jackson did not dispute it, makes me skeptical that they actually “requested the opportunity to consider seeking rehearing.” And what does “opportunity to consider seeking” mean? They always have had the opportunity to consider whatever they want to consider.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28094672-25a1197-motion/
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28094672-25a1197-motion/
Alito either lied or failed to actually read the filings. Not a good look for a Supreme Court justice.
It means they want to express their intent to consider a filing for rehearing, specifically to ensure that crazy ole Alito doesn’t do exactly what he did.
What they asked for was time to CONSIDER seeking a rehearing. That is not the same as saying they intend doing so.
Alito said they had “not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.”
This absolutely shows an intent to ask for a rehearing.
The whole purpose of the waiting period is to give the losing party time to determine whether such a request is worthwhile. This filing is evidence that they wanted that time to do precisely that.
Come on, man. It’s absolutely ridiculous for Alito to say that there hasn’t been any intent to ask for a rehearing given this filing.
Your argument is that asking for time to consider asking for reconsideration is the same as expressing an intent to ask for reconsideration. Perhaps in some informal contexts that might be true, but it is less than clear that it’s true in these circumstances where every word is carefully chosen and has very specific connotations.
The biggest weakness in your position arises from the fact that Jackson did not challenge the order’s express premise that the Robinson appellants did “not express any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.” If anyone had an incentive to challenge that characterization, it would have been Jackson, yet she did not.
The statement about no intent was in the opinion of the court, not merely in Alito’s concurrence. So at least five justices agreed with it and none, not even KBJ, challenged it.
Yes she did. “These post-Callais developments have a strong political
undercurrent. Louisiana’s hurried response to the Callais
decision unfolds in the midst of an ongoing statewide elec-
tion, against the backdrop of a pitched redistricting battle
among state governments that appear to be acting as prox-
ies for their favored political parties.2 And as always, the
Court has a choice. By my count, we have granted an ap-
plication to issue the judgment forthwith over a party’objection only twice in the last 25 years. See Whole
Woman’s Health v. Jackson, No. 21A220, 2021 WL 5931622
(Dec. 16, 2021); Order in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, No.
13A7, etc. (June 28, 2013).
Nothing in this statement says that what the court said about their lack of intent to seek a rehearing was incorrect.
Exactly. That’s the point anonymous avoids addressing head-on. Anonymous keeps blowing smoke hoping we’ll be distracted. We’re not.
A Motion to Recall Judgment (instead of a petition for rehearing) is an extreme, very extreme and extraordinary measure used to address claims of fraud, or to correct serious appellate judicial error, intervening changes in law, etc. that could result in miscarriages of justice. The Court can reject it in furtherance of judicial integrity and finality.
Appellants cite the reason for recalling judgment is that it had requested “the opportunity to consider seeking rehearing.” A request for opportunity to “consider” seeking rehearing has already been addressed as insufficient to stay the Court’s holding. However, the Court may decide to consider an en banc ruling not so much on the merits of the Motion to Recall, but to see if Appellant’s Motion even substantively rises to the level of judgment recall: Appellant cites no case law/precedent and NOW (May 5) dispositively declares -for the first time- that “Appellants INTEND (emphasis mine) to request rehearing in this case.”
IF, IF, IF Appellant Robinson had stated that in its original requested Response, a different outcome may have resulted, i.e., a temporary stay. The exigency of a timely response due to pending primary elections, etc., seems to justify the Court’s request for a shortened response window.
I’m not sure what you are talking about….https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2026-04-30-Robinson-appellants-response-to-appellants-response-to-appellees-application-for-issuance-of-a-copy-of-the-opinion-and-certified-copy-of-the-judgment-forthwith.pdf
This was April 30!
“This Court should afford Appellants the opportunity to consider seeking rehearing in the ordinary course.”
What you and Old man fail to recognize is that there is NO requirement that INTENT to file a rehearing request be shown in order to wait the customary 32 days. So Alito is making up this requirement.
How can the response be denied for failure to clearly indicate intent to file a rehearing request if there is no procedural requirement that the party show such intent?
This is absolutely insane. The DEFAULT is a 32 day hold. The waiver should only be made with the affirmative consent of the losing parties. Anything else is the Justice tipping the scales in an impartial manner.
This was timely filed. It shows the party does not want to waive the 32 waiting period rule. That should be the end of the discussion.
Entered on Docket , 29 April:
“Response to application (25A1197) requested by Justice Alito, due by 4 p.m. (EDT) on April 30, 2026.”
As a result of received responses to the above (including from Appellant Robinson), the following
Entered on Docket, 4 May:
“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. Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch join, concurs. (Detached Opinion) Justice Jackson dissents. (Detached Opinion)
Daniel: Thank you.
About fifteen minutes after Old Man from Kansas posted his comment, I cited the docket (showing Alito’s timely 29 April request for response to Appellee’s request for issuance of judgment NLT 30 April, -and Appellant Robinson’s “Response” on 30 April (Not a petition for rehearing), stating that it opposed Appellee’s request and lamely requesting in its last sentence that “the application [by Appellees] for issuance of the judgment forthwith should be denied.”) Well, duh.
But when I ‘minimized’ /reduced my comment page and flipped to the linked page, -then went back to attach the link to my comment, my comment disappeared. Ooops! So then I recreated my whole darn message and went to press ‘send,’ —but saw YOURS!!
So I thank you.
(I only add that my original comment noted that Rule 45 expressly states that “The filing of a petition for rehearing stays the mandate until disposition of the petition;” (Appellant Robinson TODAY filed a “Motion to Recall the Judgment,” which Anonymous cites).
Speaking of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown “Affirmative Action” Jackson…
“OUR DEMOCRACY”
“If a nation allows idiots and parasites to vote, it will become a nation of idiots and parasites.”
– Alfred E. Newman
_______________________
AI Overview
In 508 B.C., Athens initiated reforms that created a direct democracy, allowing a small minority of the total population to vote. Eligible voters were limited to adult male citizens, which is generally estimated to be roughly 10% to 20% of the total population. Women, slaves, and foreigners (metics) were excluded.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
__________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
______________________________________________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Wait! Did Alexander Hamilton just say, “STATES ARE COMPELLED TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON THE VOTE?”
Yep, he did.
Originally, those were male, European, and 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres (i.e. vested).
Hamilton said, “All popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications,….”
What the —- happened, America?
The simple fact is that there will be ongoing litigation whether the Cout finalized the opinion immediately, or a month from now. Given that one side will be aggrieved either way prompt compliance with the Court’s order seems preferable to holding an election six months from now that the Court has already held would be based on an unconst map. Jackson’s insistence on adherence to form over substance is just another example of her disregard for basic legal principles.
And the answer is:
Shortest Splitline Algorithm!
https://www.caliper.com/glossary/what-is-a-splitline-algorithm.htm
The cheating Democrats compel the losing Republicans to cheat just to keep up with the cheating Democrats.
The Founders and Framers fully expected American elected officials to be good, honest, and noble people like the Republicans.
Alas, it was not to be, the Democrats being derived from the dregs of society.
The Founders did leave Americans a solution, however:
_____________________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Why isn’t it used?