KBJ-isms: I’ll meet your “(wait for it)” and raise you a “full stop”
KBJ’s low-brow dissent in the ‘birthright citizenship’ case is receiving well-deserved mockery.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was pretty ruthlessly mocked in the majority 6-3 opinion in the “birthright citizenship” case, which really wasn’t about birthright citizenship so much as it was about universal injunctions.
“THIS WAS EXTREMELY STRATEGIC. IT HAS A LOT OF POTENTIAL TO ADVANCE TRUMP’S AGENDA MOVING FORWARD.”@wajacobson joins @AmandaHead to weigh in on the SCOTUS’ victory in the nationwide injunction case. pic.twitter.com/NtHC2HSyNx
— Real America's Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) June 27, 2025
It was not a gratuitous slap at her, it was a reaction to her dissenting opinion which trash talked the majority. (In case you didn’t know, the Justices circulate their opinions to each other so others can address their points.)
But I’ll admit, at first I did read parts of KBJ’s dissent but skimmed the rest, for the same reason that when you pass some crazy guy screaming on the street at a certain point you’ve heard enough and you don’t need to hang around for the whole rant.
So I didn’t notice the passage where KBJ used the phrasing “…. (wait for it) ….” (h/t T. Becket Adams)
But wait, it gets worse. I’ll meet your “(wait for it)” and raise you a “full stop”:
Stop. Full Stop. I’m ready to unconditionally surrender, don’t drop the “legalize” on me.
“Weakest link” or “Dimmest bulb in the theater”?
“IT SEEMS LIKE SHE’S ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED THAT LOSS OF RESPECT.” @wajacobson on Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent.@AmandaHead pic.twitter.com/GxwIhrxulg
— Real America's Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) June 27, 2025
Sorry, not sorry.
Absolutely no one that matters on the right thinks Kagan is stupid. In fact, they lament that she makes good arguments and has been persuasive to her colleagues — see Bostock v. Clayton.
By contrast, even Larry Tribe warned Sotomayor was not bright. And KBJ? Res ipsa loquitur. https://t.co/GVqMAkMzcG
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) June 28, 2025
I’m waiting for “let that sink in.”
— Deus ex Mozzarella (@DeusMozzarella) June 28, 2025
She deliver this dissent via text message?
— The Distributist (@TheDistributist) June 28, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Crockett of the Court.
Crockett is actually very well educated. There are videos of her on the internet where she speaks perfect English. The ghetto persona you see is an act. Likely because she knows how stupid her constituents are.
On the hand, the ignorance and stupidity you see from Jackson, is not an act.
They both are well educated, in that sense. Yeah, Crockett’s good at performance, but still not so good at much else, and not the brightest bulb either. What was meant was that they both are projecting with in your face performances.
DEI’s, both of them
They are selling degrees like candy
these days, ‘well educated’ does not necessarily mean intelligent
Educated today, means indoctrinated.
I think “ well educated” today just means credentialed. You buy those sitting around a college for 4-7 years and then you get your participation trophy
I used to fly with black flight attendants who talked normally on the plane but then spoke street talk on layovers. It always made me wonder why but I never found out.
The street talk is the culture
They fake the “educated “ White mans talk , because they have too
Code switching. I think it’s a common feature among minority groups. Homosexual men are also known for that type of thing.
We are? Not all. You won’t hear me, nor virtually all of my friends, talking swishy among ourselves.
I, for one, find it repellant in the first place, and even more so with code switchers. It reminds me of John Inman’s Mr. Humphries answering the department store phone with a voice one range down. “Men’s wear…”
Earzask earza cearzarnearzy.
(Ask a carny.)
“but what Barrett said about Jackson is even more shocking,”
“I [Barrett writing] would add that someone like Ketanji should never have ever been allowed inside the hallowed halls of the US Supreme Court. Not even as a visitor. But that she’s a judge! Outrageous! It demonstrates the rank stupidity of the person who nominated her and the stupidity of the Senators who voted to confirm her. The stupidity she exhibits on a daily basis is beyond measure.
“Ketanji [Mr. Madison], what you’ve just written, along with everything else you’ve ever written or said, was one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room [and the country] is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Even Kingsfield had to bow to the overwhelming power of affirmative action.
Well educated has nothing to do with being smart
Jackson Brown is an illuminating example of why so called “Affirmative Action” was unworkable. Her education and experience came from places that favored AA, therefore didn’t represent true education.
Continued: Experience is another form of education.
So is AOC. What’s your point?
Sorry, I didn’t make that clear. My point is that experience that came from “affirmative action” jobs isn’t up to proper standards either.
Speaking of well educated, KBJ’s use of “mind-numbingly technical” makes me wonder how she graduated from law school and passed the bar. Maybe KBJ’s mind can work better, but it just goes numb when someone disagrees with her, or when she loses a case she cares about.
On the other hand, Sotomayor wrote a pretty good dissent. It gets a little hyperbolic but legally it makes what I think are good substantive arguments. I am glad the court was not more leftist at the moment! My opinion of her went up.
She is clearly using AI to compose “her” opinions…
I know little about how AI works, but the wording – aside from the “wait for it” and the “full stop” stuff, was choppy and stilted.
She has no need. She has a staff of undoubtedly leftist clerks to write for her or smooth off the rough edges. That’s why it’s astonishing that the work was so bad.
Unless, of course, she also hires DEI.
Jackson is not dumb, just flat out partisan hack. Kagan is even worse, since she flips on her own positions to land on the target.
Sotomayor is partisan and a dummy.
Kagan’s turning out to be less clever than I expected. Her game seems to be to try to make sound legal arguments, but as much as possible push everything to where the court can make policy based decisions rather than legal ones, then push the leftist polemic for all it’s worth.
It took much longer to figure out Roberts’ game (vote on the left if and only if it matters i.e. 4-4 split of the others, otherwise vote on the right to even out his percentage and appear “moderate”). And now he seems to have been shamed into moving actually more to the right or at least the center. Maybe Roberts can’t tolerate KBJ either.
This woman is a cheap dunce. If she went to law school it doesn’t show. Pathetic.
.
Harvard Law, Cum Laude, 1996, and editor of The Harvard Law Review.
Harvard isn’t what it used to be if it ever was.
Exhibit B: Obamarama
Joy Reid of MSNBC is also a Harvard grad! It sort of makes the school look bad when you know obama also graduated from there too.
Surely you jest!
Yes. And don’t call me Shirley!
😏
All gifted DEI
Probably paid someone for her papers
These accolades are fraudulent. She is typical of what you’d expect from so called “affirmative action.”
Harvard has become the bargain basement of universities, with a gargantuan price. Tailor made for the embarrassingly stupid.
I have to wonder if both were DEI-forced things, or, has Haah-vahd fallen FAR further than I thought it has.
People don’t understand how these kinds of things work for black people.
A black student who is not disruptive, who sits quietly and even helps the teacher occasionally will get good grades.
Even if they don’t learn a thing.
This leads to the st6range phenomena of valedictorians and honor students who are illiterate.
I watched this happening first hand. And it doesn’t stop– even when you call ‘educators’ to task for it.
These hotbeds of DEI practice it incessantly, going to great lengths to raise people up without ever understanding that you can’t raise someone up who can’t get there on their own.
We have to remind ourselves how incredibly strong “Affirmative Action” used to be. It was a religion in this country. And due to our significance in the world, we were infecting the whole world with ideological poison. To go from where we were, to where we are now, shows the hand of God working to preserve our country.
All that said, I remember seeing a few things KBJ had written as an appellate judge, when she was up for Senate confirmation for SCOTUS. And they seemed good enough and temperate, not brilliant or exceptional but just fine. When KBJ got onto SCOTUS, she shed all that “legalese” and turned into someone who doesn’t always seem like a lawyer.
It’s like that retard, tjv, clerks for Jackson.
Even the failed lawyer from Iowa, JR, is possibly smarter than Jackson.
Hmmm
You are overly generous and kind.
It is quite possible that I overestimated Junior’s intellectual candlepower.
Martians… from another planet, you missed the Martians….
https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2025/06/28/ketanji-brown-jackson-alien-n2414911
Yes, she actually spoke to space Aliens
James Taranto
@jamestaranto
·
5h
An underappreciated passage of Justice Jackson’s dissent in CASA is her appeal to the authority of a fictional space alien.
She can’t stay on that court if she doesn’t understand, nor can she adjudicate, constitutional law.
I don’t care who that offends, but there is too much at stake here.
They’re going to have to find a way to remove her.
That would set an awful precedent and right now she is on display for mockery. Hopefully, that is enough to never get another like her, even the Dems that confirmed her have to have voters remorse at this point.
Why? Removing someone obviously unqualified from SCOTUS would be the right thing to do.
And Harry Reid infamously thought Clarence Thomas was “obviously unqualified”, and an “embarrassment”. He made a fool of himself, but if the precedent had been established that justices could be removed for that then he would certainly have tried to do so.
I wonder how Kagan really feels about what it takes (holding nose) to maintain the “progressive” posture within the Court. A fellow traveler enduring two useful idiots. A radio pair would offer up the latest Jessie Jackson speeches requesting the audience to call in and elucidate exactly what he said. Now we have another Jackson… Trying to figure out if she thinks.
It’s not about what someone ‘thought’, Democrat.
It’s about objective reality. For the love of all the gods, this person doesn’t even know what sex she is without some credentialed imbecile telling her.
Oh, from her answer, I think she knows what sex she is… she’s just at a loss as to how she would go about proving it to anybody else who contradicted her.
But there are no binding constitutional qualifications for being a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. You don’t even have to be a lawyer. Yeah, it would be a good idea to have some idea of the law but it ain’t really necessary. And there’s absolutely no requirement that you are at least minimally intelligent or competent for the job. All you have to do is get past the Senate confirmation hearing and your golden. Set for life. And that’s what happened with Brown-Jackson. She got through the Senate confirmation hearing despite all evidence that she didn’t have the knowledge, experience or competency necessary to be an effective Supreme Court justice. But there you go and here we are. And we’re all just going to have to deal with it until she either retires or dies. Whichever comes first.
Unfortunately, she hasn’t done anything that would warrant her removal. Being stupid isn’t a crime and neither is being so obviously wrong. We have a mechanism in place to keep an idiot form ruining everything, that is why we have 9 justices, in theory it balances everything out.
judge do not need the high crime, as they serve during times of good behavior
Good behavior means not committing an offense. So there’s little difference between the two criteria. Judges can’t be removed simply because Congress doesn’t like them, or doesn’t approve of their decisions.
There’s only one way to do that. Unfortunately, the people who would have to do it are largely the same group of yutzes who approved her in the first place.
They’d have to invoke Rapid Onset Senility or something similar. A pretty hard sell.
She will announce that she has prostrate cancer and needs to step down the next time the Dems are in power. And I am sure someone is weighing the situation and speculating which is worse, her remaining as an embarrassment in a 6-3 court, or her stepping down and allowing trump to make it 7-2. The proverbial rock and hard place.
I can’t recall when I’ve ever seen a SCOTUS justice really take one “for the team”, retiring early while their party’s president can nominate their successor. They all hang on until they can’t do the work anymore, or croak. Or are about to be impeached like Abe Fortas.
Nah, let her stay. She is a shining (read it: rather dull) example of where DEI collides with the Peter Principle and Murphy’s Law. And the cries of “racism,” even though racism was used to select her, would be quite loud.
When are Dem socialists going to realize that selecting demonstrably poor DEI candidates does more to harm their argument than promote it?
Unless, of course, the selection was also a DEI process, which explains much of what the Dems do and how poorly they do it.
Every DEI candidate is poor by definition. If they were good, then DEI wouldn’t enter into it. Someone told 53 or Senators that they had to vote for her and they did in lock-step.
They call us Nazis, and then they act like Nazis whenever the opportunity presents. I have spent the last week asking Libs why they thought it was OK for Obammy to act like a King if they are against Kings in principle. Turns out, no principles were involved.
No way Congress will impeach her, nor Senate remove, with Trump able to appoint a conservative replacement. But yeah, she’s way underperformed on SCOTUS. There was none of this sort of ideological rhetoric presented during her confirmation process. She seemed to write at least decently as an appellate judge.
Once she got on SCOTUS, it’s like she decided “I’m free!!!” and let her true feeling out in her opinions. I remember that was obvious right from the beginning. Which is good, because it’s more honest than hiding them but inventing legal arguments to get the same result. Heck all she had to do here was sign onto Sotomayor’s pretty good dissent, and she would have looked fine.
“Once she got on SCOTUS, it’s like she decided “I’m free!!!” and let her true feeling out in her opinions.”
I’ve always felt that this kind of leftist dissimulation is why Democrat appointees are 90% reliable, whereas Republican appointees are 50% reliable if you’re lucky.
The damage she could do would also set a precedent.
With all things otherwise being equal,
logic dictates that she be removed.
Have you seen the caliber of opposition of Congressional Republicans? They’re basically useless.
To impeach her would spend an awful lot of political capital for a House that has a microscopic R majority. For what? The Senate would not vote 2/3 to remove.
This is still a black woman. You still have to be careful. Now you can criticize (could not until recently) but take the W and move on. Let the Dems fight this out among themselves, as people on their side like KBJ and Zohran Mamdani embarrass the party.
What is this logic of which you write? Emotion rules the day on the left, easily manipulated, immune to critical thought and logic.
And how would you have her removed, exactly as there are no binding constitutional requirements for serving as Justice of the Supreme Court. None. What. So. Ever. All one has to do is get past the Senate confirmation hearing and you’re set for life. And that’s what happened with Brown-Jackson. She somehow got through the Senate confirmation hearing despite all evidence that she was not qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. So on what grounds would you have KBJ removed, exactly.
Impeachment and removal, just like any federal official. Abe Fortas faced an impeachment investigation in the House, and he resigned from SCOTUS.
Farangi Jackson Browne seems to be really stuck on the “notion that a federal judge can order the Executive”.
“ordering the Executive” is not the job of a federal judge – or any judge. Judges’ jobs are to rectify cases before them, not to issue sweeping commands to anyone they deem beneath them (which seems to include everyone who is not them, to so many of these so-called judges.
Jackson Browne seems to have another glaring point of public retardation when she declares that a federal judge has the magical ability to KNOW what “adheres to the Constitution” means, without any question (even as so many lower court decisions are overturned on plain stupidity and treasonous judicial activism). This low-IQ bint can’t tell anyone what a woman is but she(?) can suss out exactly what “adhering to the Constitution” means in any circumstance with nothing more than a weekend’s consideration, and thus fashion her(?) ORDERS TO THE EXECUTIVE to do what she(?) says because she(?) knows!!!
This chick, along with Sotomayor, is nothing but a mockery of a modern society. These chicks couldn’t hold their own in a high school debate club, let alone serving on the highest court in the land. Pathetic.
whom did you say appointed her?
autopen appointed.
Wouldn’t that be a thing if we ended in the situation where she’s removed because President Autopen nominated her and Trump appoints a 7th, and this time true, conservative to the SCOTUS 😂
But the Autopen didn’t agree to confirm her.
Doesn’t matter. IF it could be proven that the president never appointed her then it doesn’t matter that the senate consented to such an appointment. Officers of the United States are appointed by the president, not by the senate.
Relax sweeties, I was more laughing at the potential billions of leftist suicides for Trump getting another SCOTUS appointment at the expense of President Autopen 😂😂
7th times the charm.
We can hope! Even just to eat popcorn to watch the epic trolling
Better do it fast. As it is, she’s embarrassing Dems, but if a future Dem president can appoint her replacement, we’ll get a competent leftist. Should probably remove asap so that Dems can’t play this game (although removing a black woman would be very hard for them to tolerate) and Trump gets to appoint the replacement instead. Say, a better black woman.
‘I think she skipped school the day they taught law in law school …’
First time I have ever seen the word “fuss: used in a legal filing. From her dissent section III
“Indeed, one might wonder: Why all the
fuss?”
Mrs. Chaucey Gardiner.
I’ve seen broad writing. I’ve seen lots of good and creative writing. That’s not the problem. They write these things for the public to read them, and they’re supposed to be interesting.
The problem is that her legal argument, the purely legal aspects of it, shouldn’t get an A in high school civics.
The non-biologist and her clerks are idiots. I recall that in her dissent in another case she/they cited a completely discredited and widely mocked “study” alleging that black doctors produced better health outcomes for black patients than non-black doctors.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/kentanji-brown-jackson-made-mathematically-absurd-claim-black-newborns-wsj-op-ed
On a strongly related note, I just ran across a scholarly study about how the work of confirmed scholastic fraud Michael Bellesiles had been popular to cite in court decisions before he was exposed and defrocked in 2022; then citations to his work dropped quickly to zero for around two decades. Now, mysteriously, judicial decisions have begun citing him again as if he were some kind of reliable authority. How could such a thing even be possible?
For the same reason Kafan will be against lower courts shutting down the Executive when her political party is in power, then go 180 when DJT has the seat.
Bellesiles was exposed as a charlatan in 2002, not 2022.
Yeah, I just noticed that typo. and was about to correct it…
Lysenko would have made a come-back if Harris had been elected.
She seems not to understand, or at least not to appreciate, how legal analysis is done at the level of SCOTUS. She’s a walking, talking (and writing) scandal.
And more’s the pity, Schoolhouse Rock just pulled their hiring ads.
This is an Ai analysis (not mine). I am curious if any of the legal scholars here are using Ai to good effect in case preparation, closing arguments, etc?
The ZAK files today published an Ai analysis of the court decision Trump v CASA. The attack on her legal ‘reasoning’ is blistering, and too long to quote in detail. The link is below.
https://zarkfiles.substack.com/p/justice-jackson-and-the-ai-law-professor?r=kooxi
“For fun, I uploaded the documents (Coney-Barrett’s decision ,Justice Jackson’s dissent) to Claude.ai and asked it to grade them from the perspective of a Harvard law school professor, on quality of argument and understanding of law. It gave Coney-Barrett an A-. This is what it had to say about Jackson:
“Ms. Jackson,
This dissent contains such fundamental errors in legal reasoning and judicial temperament that I’m genuinely concerned about your understanding of both constitutional law and the judicial role.
Disqualifying Problems
1. Inappropriate Judicial Voice Your use of colloquialisms like “wait for it” is completely unacceptable in judicial writing. Supreme Court opinions are formal legal documents, not casual commentary. This language suggests you don’t understand the gravity and formality required of your institutional role.””
The attack on her legal ‘reasoning’ is blistering, and too long to quote in detail.
After discussing 5 more disqaualifiers, it closes:
”
The Fundamental Problem
You seem to believe judges should have whatever power necessary to achieve results you consider just, regardless of legal constraints. This is the opposite of constitutional adjudication, which requires operating within specific grants of authority even when the results seem suboptimal.
Your dissent reads like someone who wants to be a political activist, not a judge.
Grade: F
This work demonstrates such fundamental misunderstanding of judicial role and legal methodology that I would recommend you seriously reconsider whether law is the right field for you.”
Ai does seem to be advancing quickly.
LOL. That was awesome! I liked this point #2:
If given the opportunity, I suspect that Brown would rule that 2 + 2 = 4 is racist. All liberals know that the answer is 3, or 5, or both ( to be inclusive).
TY VA.. very interesting. The appointment process was flawed (autopen?) and the confirmation process failed. How many of these safeguard failures can a nation endure? I am not feeling all warm and fuzzy. And doesn’t a esteemed group like Scotus have standards of behavior? I think she will do something really stupid, and maybe be forced to resign. Magical thinking, but that is where we are.
I paid some attention during her nomination and confirmation. Some appellate opinions were discussed, and they seemed reasonable. Fairly nonpartisan, or at least legally based.
She just went to hell when she got onto SCOTUS. If the autopen investigation can result in her removal and replacement by a Trump nominee, great. But the confirmation process was fine. She was a better judge then.
Awesome. This should be published somewhere for all to read.
Well deserved and earned meme of the three losers.
https://x.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1938692361858551957
Hysterical.
It reminded me of something..maybe that was the whole point.
https://i.postimg.cc/fbXjQffj/see-no-evil2.jpg
I fail to understand how this can happen. The justices all have brilliant law clerks who can do the heavy intellectual lifting. A stupid justice can basically tell her clerks the desired result and to make it look good. In the corporate world every black female executive has others do ALL her work while she merely graces the workplace with her ebony presence.
I think that is a fair question.. just spitballin,, dei hire, repeats that and hires clerks based on dei… Maybe?
any clerk that would let that dissent be published is neither smart or acting in the Justice’s best interest
Not acting in the judge’s best interest? Maybe that was the intention or maybe she thought that her personal touch was needed.
Is there a way to know the status of her clerks. I imagine it involves a thick rope and a destination known as a “dock.”
If I’m a law clerk depending on my boss’ recommendation for my next job, and she publishes something stupid and my polite observations are discounted, I’m getting out of the way and getting on the bandwagon.
KBJ is 100% responsible. The presence of law clerks just makes her performance worse.
She plays the part of the authentic voice of black people on the court.
Clarence Thomas would disagree. But it reflects a split in the black population. Black men want to be strong family men, a conservative archetype. Black women are the ones that kick the baby daddies out. Recall how during Obama, it was all about “black women”. Not “black people”, just the women.
Growing up on TV, and later in the early days of internet, I remember many charitable solicitations to send money to poor starving Africa. (that’s what they described, I’m not arguing whether it was accurate) It was usually to support black women’s businesses. I remember thinking, aren’t these traditional cultures that we would be upending by promoting black women to be the most powerful adults in the society? It’s a worldwide agenda grounded in the natural tendencies of black men and those of black women, which are apparently different.
Most of Europe, and all of blue America have proved that “black” is unnecessary to this observation.
Having read the excerpts of her dissent. I’m reminded of a South Park episode where the kids started speaking in slang they picked up from Chef. He got mad because they were using his slang. So he just started making up nonsense words to differentiate and reclaim his “ghetto” speak. This Justice is framing her dissent using colloquialisms as appropriate legal qualifiers. Don’t forget the aba rated her a well qualified. What does that say about that organization? Justice KJB is an unqualified hack. And the Court is stuck with her for at least 35-40 years. Or until she does something that could get her impeached.
Too many ribs, fried chicken, BBQ, and pork sandwiches may be her worst enemy.
Look in the mirror, racist. Oh, and you forgot to add watermelon.
The House N arises again to keep blacks on the plantation.
Yessah Massah, I believe a goood knee grow for you.
What you call racist is fact. Black women do not live as long as white women do due poor eating habits and poor decision making, as well as genetic makeup.
But to you, KJB is a kneegrow plantation worker, because to you, EVERYTHING IS RACIST.
Watermelon is pretty healthy.
Do we really have to honor a lifetime appointment to the land’s highest court for someone who refuses to read, guides her judgment using feelings and not doctrine, and most of all was appointed by the autopen of a walking corpse that only uplifted this particular animal to fulfill a campaign promise?
I don’t think so. All appointments are partisan to a degree but she is the worst among them. It would be one thing if she twisted herself in knots with citations and legal research to justify herself, but she rants and raves about things she literally doesn’t understand.
Are we seriously going to deal with this for 30 years, or can we do something right the fuck now?
Yes.
As Clark Fries observed in Podkayne of Mars, it’s false security to put an uncrackable seal on one face of a box that has five other faces.
compare kentaji with the jan 6 peaceful protestors
who will and is going to do the most damage to the country!!??!?!?!?!?
The Dems would have been better off selecting one of those black female TV judges.
At least they demonstrate some common sense. Could probably tell you what a woman was too….
As I’ve suggested elsewhere, I don’t think that the 8 Supreme Court Justices would have allowed such an intellectual beating merely because Justice (and I use the word loosely) Jackson is stupid and unprofessional. She must have done something far worse that for someone like Roberts to allow a Justice, any Justice, to be mocked like that. I don’t know what it is, but some involvement in the leak or cover-up of the leak, of Justice Alito’s opinion on abortion comes to mind as a possibility.
Where’s the proof that her clerks wrote it? Are you absolutely sure she didn’t have an “autopen” like Marc Elias or Norm Eisen ghost it for her?
Lawfare rolls that way, you know!
Some carryover “Valley Girl”. Wrote it for her….fur sure fur sure.
The wise Sotomayor is going to have to up her game. Action Jackson is outshining her and more importantly, getting more press!
At least she didn’t end with “Peace out” or use the word existential.
I wonder if an early draft contained “legalese n sh!t” ?
I bet the other two Leftist Justices are really PO’d because it is clear that Jaction won’t be allowed to pen a dissent in the near future, if ever. For the Left, she has value in that she is a known activist vote on everything, but it may also be seen that her vote comes at too high of a cost if she can’t even come close to supporting it with a reasonable argument. My guess is that if the Dems ever get someone in as President, and a slight majority in the Senate, Brown will suddenly report that she has health issues which require her to step down. As Tropic Thunder advised us, you never go “Full Retard” and she just did.
Jackson ponders whether a district court judge can order the President to follow the law. The bigger question is if we can force a district court judge to follow the law. They are not elected officials, they have no accountability for their decisions.
Jackson ignores that the president is not breaking the law, because the question has not come before the courts and had a single proper ruling.
Such a quotable Supreme Court Justice:
I’m not a biologist.
Just wait for it
Full stop
Now, whenever these phrases are used, most people will likely recall how terrible the reasoning ability of Jackson has. I guess it will be phrases our culture will use for the next few decades to call someone stupid.
“ well I guess you’re just not a biologist are you?”
Will be a phrase where “ I guess you’re not playing with a full deck” could’ve been used.
Now you have me wondering if that line ever became popular with bar troons.
What’s wrong with ketanji’s forehead? Why does she look like that?
It looks to me like she has a very nice forehead… though the hairline does look strangely “pluggy.”
How power hungry she is!
From the first page of her dissent: “Focusing on inapt comparisons to impotent English tribunals, the majority ignores the
Judiciary’s foundational duty to uphold the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”
From nearby on the second page: “To hear the majority tell it, this suit raises a mind-numbingly technical query: Are universal injunctions “sufficiently ‘analogous’ to the relief issued ‘by the High Court of
Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act’”
to fall within the equitable authority Congress granted federal courts in the Judiciary Act of 1789?”
1. here’s “mind numbingly”. If her mind is so easily numbed, perhaps she should step aside.
2. but also, why does she describe “the High Court of
Chancery in England” as “impotent”?
I guess now that she’s so great and powerful, a veritable queen-bee of the American power structure, anything else or more limited in England (or maybe England itself?) is “impotent”.
‘‘analogous’ to the relief issued ‘by the High Court of
Chancery in England”
“I mean, I was all, really?”
Jackson’s dissent is the most non-legal, overtly political, puerile emanation I have ever read in over 30 years.
As a graduate of Georgetown Law in 1994 after 8 years (night school, Law Journal member), I’m appalled that someone who got to be a Justice who can’t even cite cases to support her(?) (Maybe her Blue Book failed her
For some unknown reason, I would never have gotten into Georgetown if the Jackson and Sotomayor standards were applied today;
Jackson’s opinion is just embarrassing to legal education and the Supreme Court.
I love it that a diverse group of qualified White Men A Black Man, and White Woman agreed – ain’t Diversity Grand?
There is some hope – the qualified Jewish and the DEI Hispanic Woman refused to join the DEI incompetent selection.
From KBJ’s dissent p. 31
“The majority, however, delights to do justice by piecemeal.”
She doesn’t know that the word “by” is out of place in that idiom? What is her native language? Or was it just not proofread before being entered into the permanent record of SCOTUS and legal history?
KBJ’s single talent is Feigned Intellectualism wherein she proves her ignorance by attempting to appear smarter than she is but is simply not bright enough to recognize her intellectual limitations.