Justice Amy Coney Barrett calls Ketanji Brown Jackson an idiot

Good day all, Today, Friday June 27^th, the Supreme Court released their final rulings. One of them was in regards to Birthright Citizenship. However, that was actually a subset on the Democrats pet judges issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump. It was the nationwide injunctions issue that the ruling was concerned with.

On that case, the SCOTUS basically told the lower courts to knock it off. I’ll write something about that in another post. What has everyone talking though, was something that Justice Barrett wrote in the decision regarding something that Jackson wrote. Here are the details from Fox News:

Justice Amy Coney Barrett had pointed words on Friday for her colleague Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, accusing Jackson of taking an “extreme” position on the role of the judiciary branch.

Pointed is a nice way of saying that she called Jackson a moron.

Writing in her Supreme Court opinion on nationwide injunctions, Barrett said Jackson’s dissent contained “rhetoric,” and she signaled that the liberal justice’s arguments were not worth much attention.

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Now this was in regards to the case regarding birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court wasn’t ruling on the matter of birthright citizenship, instead this was about the Biden and Obama judges issuing nationwide injunctions.

Barrett, who was appointed by Trump, wrote that when judges issue injunctions to block policies, like those the Trump administration is trying to implement, they cannot apply the injunction to more than the parties involved in the case. Barrett said that type of order, often called a “nationwide injunction,” is judicial overreach.

That it most certainly is. It’s also been used almost exclusively by Democrat judges. (A few Republican, (RINOs actually), appointees have also pulled this stunt. In almost all cases, the “Nationwide Injunction” was politically motivated with no basis in the law or constitution. It was designed to block President Trump from keeping his promises, doing his duty under the Constitution, and to protect the Progressive Liberal actions being shut down.

Now this was a 6-3 ruling with the Libtard Justices, Kagan, Sotomayor and Brown Jackson dissenting. However, Brown Jackson’s dissent, if it had been the majority ruling, would have basically made the Judicial Branch the superior branch of government. (For about 15 minutes until they were removed by the President and Congress and thrown in prison. Judges rely on the Executive Branch to enforce their rulings)

Jackson wrote that nationwide injunctions should be permissible because the courts should not allow the president to “violate the Constitution.”

The problem with that idiocy is that most of these injunctions were blatantly blocking he President from doing his constitutional duty under Article II.

Barrett said that was not based on any existing legal doctrine.

“She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,” Barrett wrote.

In another dissenting opinion, Sotomayor decided that doubling down on stupid was the way to go.

Sotomayor, meanwhile, wrote in her own dissenting opinion that the Supreme Court was being “complicit” by allowing the Trump administration to extract a perceived win out of the high court over birthright citizenship.

Sotomayor said that every court that has reviewed Trump’s birthright citizenship plan thus far has blocked Trump from carrying it out. Trump played a “different game,” Sotomayor said, by bringing the case before the Supreme Court without actually asking the justices to analyze the merits of his plan. Trump instead asked the justices to weigh in on the legality of nationwide injunctions in general.

So what? As far as I, and millions of others are concerned, while the question of Birthright citizenship does need to be looked into by SCOTUS, the actions of a number of corrupt Obama and Biden basically more like Judge Dredd then members of the Judicial Branch had to be addressed.

The question of Birthright citizenship and the 14^th Amendment does need to be looked into by SCOTUS and it will be, just not today.

The Supreme Court’s decision still allows for the high possibility that judges will continue to widely block Trump’s birthright citizenship order, but with different legal maneuvering on the part of the plaintiffs and the courts.

I looked up Justice Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion. Now I am not, never have been and never will be a lawyer. I scanned through it and even I, in my utterly and completely unschooled reading of this drivel shows that Brown Jackson is utterly unqualified to be anything more then a barista at Starbucks. She has said that she isn’t even able to tell the difference between a man and a woman. She, Sotomayor and Kagan all need to step down. They have repeatedly shown that they were put on the bench not to uphold the Constitution, but to burn it.

It now appears that, at least in the case of Brown Jackson, that she has finally pissed off the other justices. Amy Coney Barrett’s in the decision that Brown Jackson wasn’t worth much attention was a polite and judicial way of saying that Brown Jackson is a moron who doesn’t know the law, the Constitution or the differences between men and women. It will be interesting what happens next.

Thatisall

(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Loading...

~The Angry Webmaster~