SCOTUS Majority Tired of ‘Histrionics And Hysteria’ From Court Liberals
Professor Jonathan Turley: “The important thing to remember is that, you know, Justice Barrett delivered what was essentially a pile driver but she didn’t do it alone.”
If you watched the clip we recently featured of MSNBC legal analysts reacting to decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court this week, you have a sense of how dramatic the left wing of the court was in their dissents. It was truly over the top.
Professor Jonathan Turley appeared on the Hannity show with guest host Kellyanne Conway on Friday night and suggested that the court’s majority must be getting tired of the ‘histrionics and hysteria’ coming from Justices Jackson and Sotomayor.
Transcript via Real Clear Politics:
KELLYANNE CONWAY, “HANNITY” GUEST HOST: For anyone against unchecked government power, this was a very, very good day.
Here now with analysis, FOX News contributor Jonathan Turley.
Jonathan Turley, what an incredible day at the Supreme Court.
Let’s have you break it down. And also I think people are very curious how this does impact things like sanctuary city funding, birthright citizenship and other issues at play.
JONATHAN TURLEY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, thank you, Kellyanne.
I think that the first thing the president should do is go buy a lottery ticket because he’s having a heck of a week and if I was going to get a lottery ticket, it’s probably be today.
But this is a huge win for him. It does negate what has been a stumbling block. These judges have been throwing sand in the works in many of his policies, from immigration, to birthright citizenship, to DOGE cuts. That will presumably now be tamped down.
If these judges try to circumvent that, I think they’ll find an even more expedited path to a Supreme Court that’s going to continue to reverse some of these — lift some of these injunctions.
As you noted, the opinion was really radioactive in this take-down of Justice Jackson. I — it’s rare. I’ve been — I’ve been covering the Supreme Court for decades. It’s rare to see that type of exchange.
The important thing to remember is that, you know, Justice Barrett delivered what was essentially a pile driver but she didn’t do it alone. I mean, her colleagues signed on to this and I think it’s very clear that the majority is getting tired of the histrionics and the hysteria that seems to be growing a bit on the left side of the court. But this was really an astonishing uh takedown by the justice.
But it’s the — it’s the hyperbole that’s coming out of the dissent that is so notable. Justice Sotomayor in that Maryland case said that giving parents the ability to opt out of a few lessons was going to, quote, create chaos and probably end public education. Then you had Justice Jackson saying this could very well essentially be the death of democracy. It’s the type of hyperbole that most justices have avoided.
Watch the clip below:
Jonathan Turley: ‘Very Clear’ After Curbing Nationwide Injunctions, Majority SCOTUS Growing Tired Of Histrionics from Left Side of Court pic.twitter.com/y6HNrpNW13
— Alexandra Datig | Front Page Index 🇺🇸 (@alexdatig) June 28, 2025
Featured image via Twitter video.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Growing Tired. They should have dropped the hammer on these leftys four years ago.
Don’t you mean herstrionics?
historio-ebonio-theatrics
herstrio-latinio-ebonio-theatrics for $1000 please Alex.
I’m sorry, but that one is only worth 50 cents.
That would make even the daily double worthless.
Hysterical … histrionics… same path.
How dare you assume gender
Indeed. It should be “theystrionics”.
This time around Trump has some good WH lawyers who understood the Court’s ‘let the system work’ admonition to Trump earlier. Well done and well played our side.
Jackson and Sotomayer have been marginalized. That’s so racist and sexist.
Speaking of sexist it’s interesting that Barret was the one to drop the hammer. Either it was because she has the least seniority or it is because she is female and that would (mostly) negate any claim of sexism by the unhinged left.
I’ve wondered for some time where is Kagan in all this, Yes she is a member of the 3 but you don’t hear much from her. At least I haven’t. Perhaps she just prefers to be overshadowed by the wise Latina and the angry black female, She then comes off as the (maybe) sane one.
I may often disagree with Kagan, but she can make intelligent legal arguments
I think Sotomayor is the dumbest of the bunch, but Jackson is giving her a run for the money.
what we used to call a race to the bottom
The Wide Latina has a definite advantage there.
Don’t count Jackson out yet. Give her time.
Rumor has it she’s deep in Biology studies.
Kagan made an excellent one in 2022 when she said “it just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through normal process.”
And then she flip flopped to tow the party line and votes 180⁰ on this. SMH
and it keeps me awake at night wondering why
I’ll not live long enough to find out the ins and outs of the court’s chicanery/machinations, but it does make me wonder what, at these heights could be the driving force
Autopen was president in 2022 and probably a conservative judge enacted a nation wide stoppage of some sort.
And so did everyone on the right who cheered the injunctions then.
Not “probably”. Were you not paying attention then? Not one person here objected.
I would guess it was because those rulings appeared more organic and less the result of an organized Resistance doing judge-shopping. Now the stench is unmistakable, and (entirely unlike the Spanish Inquisition) totally predictable.
Wonder what she was talking about?
That line doesn’t come from any kind of decision, it comes from an interview.
Which, Democrat, is probably why –let me quote you– ” Not one person here objected.”
Because there may have been nothing to object to.
Milhouse’s point is that we didn’t object to the injunctions themselves, not to Kagan’s spoken opinion in that interview,
Azathoth, you lying piece of filth, go back to Hell where you belong. How dare you.
It does not matter which area of life, the histrionics and hysteria follows. Ironically, they see their virtue signals as acts of rationalism.
Jackson and Sotomayor sound like activists, not justices. Legal analysis? What’s that? The more distressed a Trump policy makes them feel, the less capable they become of responding rationally. To them, their work is not about justice, it’s about social justice.
I’m sure they have fans who are all “You go girl,” but they are, in fact, embarrassments to the bench.
They are perfectly representative of their fellow CNN and MSNBC watching constituency.
“Then you had Justice Jackson saying this could very well essentially be the death of democracy.”
KBJ, your speech is violence. Check your privilege!
She needs to stay in her lane!
She needs to know he…
/better not.
Is she even up to the bike lane?
IMHO the best line from Justice Jackson that shows how unqualified she is for her position is when she essentially said: We don’t need legalese. Well, if judges don’t do legalese, why are they necessary? Without legalese, we’re uncharted waters because know one will ever know what’s legal and what’s not. As they say in the vernacular: dumbkopf.
It’s the same legalese she’d happily screw you with if you were up before her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtVllgTPyfk
legalese = blackspeak/mushmouf
“Legalese,” when properly employed, is meant to lend precision to an argument, or in the case of a judge or justice, to an opinion.
Complaining about “legalese” reminds me of people who claim a point of law is a “technicality.” Well, yes, it is. Law is an assemblage of technicalities. As per your rhetorical question, judges (and attorneys) are necessary because the law is technical! All technical specialties employ jargon that is specific to the subject matter. It’s what allows the specialty’s experts to discuss their subject matter with precision and specificity.
I agree (though I’m a dentist, not a lawyer), but she employed it as a not-so-subtle substitute word for “bullscat,” deriding the basis for English Common Law [from Latin dērīdēre, the present active infinitive of dērīdeō (“to laugh at, make fun of, mock, deride”)]
If she’s against legalese, what the hell is she doing on the Supreme Court, which is all about legalese?
She is speaking power to legalese……down for the shhhtruggle. Doesn’t legalese lead to Christian Nationalism or White Supremacy?
No. It always leads back to The Joooozzz.
I’ve taken to calling them Dramacrats. It fits.
Kagan J. really outed herself as a results-oriented judge and political activist in joining the dissent when she herself had said a few years ago one cannot have district court judges enjoining the executive nationwide, but then joined the dissent in this case.
Sotomayor? I recall Harvard Law School Prof. Emeritus Alan Dershowitz having dismissed her, as one who was not nearly as intelligent as she herself thought she was.
And Jackson? What a joke.
Pathetic, and unfortunately, appointed for life.
Sotomayor is the definition of a midwit. Jackson is just a DEI hire.
What? The self described “wise Latina?”
Also interesting in this case was that Sotomayer and Kagan did NOT sign off on Jackson’s poorly written and mostly confusing points (again if there were any).
So Jackson is in the same position as Harris. The Left knows that they are a problem, but they are stuck with her, because the Left can absolutely never admit that they made a mistake. Like all good DEI employees, they are going to have to bring in someone to do Jackson’s job for her, but like Brandon, I suspect her ego will not let that happen and she will again bless us with a dissent that will be mockable until the cows come home. She will be a gift that keeps on giving, and with us having a sane majority, she will in effect only cause damage to the Left.
FWIW, ‘admitting mistakes’ doesn’t appear to be on anyone’s lists of virtues to uphold. Esp. in politics. At any level.
At the risk of sounding hysterical, it’s – literally – killing us.
Has it happened before that the majority opinion castigated, by name, a dissenter?
Majority opinions often address points raised by dissents.
“I think it’s very clear that the majority is getting tired of the histrionics and the hysteria that seems to be growing a bit on the left side of the court”
Liberal hysteria and histrionics are totally media-driven. It all comes down to where one gets their news, and SCOTUS Justices are just as susceptible to it as everyone else.