Good day all. Up until recently, Sonia Sotomayor was considered to be the dumbest member of the Supreme Court. Then came Joe Biden who said “Hold my ice cream and winter is puppies.” He, or someone on his staff, nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson. Things went down hill from there.
Right off the bat her senate confirmation hearing was a joke. She couldn’t even define what a woman was. Of course, the whole thing was a formality since the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time and simply rubber stamped her onto the Supreme Court.
Since her arrival, Jackson has demonstrated what a complete incompetent she is. Recently, Justice Amy Barrett smacked her down hard in a SCOTUS decision, saying that Jackson’s remarks could be ignored. Now we have, in her own words, what Ketanji Jackson Brown sees as the real reason she is on the Supreme Court. Here are the details from the Federalist:
Does Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson know what the role of a judge is?
Is this a trick question?
It’s a question worth asking given her recent comments at this year’s Global Black Economic Forum.
Speaking with ABC News hack Linsey Davis in a wide-ranging interview on Saturday, the junior justice spoke to attendees about her 2024 memoir and experiences while serving on the nation’s highest court.
Oh this should be interesting.
The most head-turning part of the Biden appointee’s remarks, however, came during her response to a question from Davis on if she is concerned about “the current state of American democracy” — a not-so-subtle dig at sitting President Donald Trump.
Now the correct answer should have been that it wasn’t her place to comment on this. The idea would be to try and keep the court, as much as possible, out of the political arena. Jackson? Yeah, she apparently skipped class that day when they were teaching future judges on decorum.
Jackson said she’s “heartened that people are focused on the court and the work that we’re doing on the state of the government.” She further expressed support for the American people “leading in terms of the policies and the way in which our government operates” — a statement seemingly at odds with judicial supremacist views she espoused in her unhinged Trump v. CASA dissent last month.
For those who weren’t aware, this was the case where Justice Barrett basically bitch slapped Jackson Brown. The case was the one where the Court shut down most of the Nationwide Injunctions being issued by district court judges, almost all of them issued by Obama or Biden judges. Jackson basically said that the judges rule the country.
Jackson then turned to the writing of SCOTUS opinions, saying that she feels she’s “been privileged to … use the writings that [she does], the work that [she does], to explain [her] views about the way our government does and should work; the way the court does and should work.” It is through this process, the Biden appointee noted, that she is able to tell the American people how she “feel[s]” about any given case and its outcome.
“I think the nice part about being on the court is you have the opportunity, whether you’re in the majority or in the dissent, to express your opinions,” Jackson said. “I just feel 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.”
That is not what you are supposed to be doing you Marxist moron. Your job is to read the Constitution, (You should try it sometime. It’s very educational), the law and write a decision that upholds the Constitution and, unless the law is what you are declaring unconstitutional, the Law. Instead, you like to write the judicial version of a Russian novel, with the accent on novel.
That answer clearly didn’t satisfy Davis’ desire for a more partisan response.
The ABC anchor again probed the justice if she “is concerned about the state of democracy today.”
“My feelings about the state of democracy have been expressed in the context of my opinions when issues come up related to democracy,” Jackson replied. “So, it’s hard to say, you know, am I concerned in a general way? The concerns that I have I have articulated in my opinions.”
Well, it looks like someone did study at the Kamala Harris School of Word Salad.
Contrary to Jackson’s remarks, it’s not the job of any judge to tell people how he or she “feels” about specific issues in the cases before the court. Rather, it’s to assess the facts of the case and deliver an opinion that is based upon those facts and what the Constitution and law call for.
For a judge to inject his or her “feelings” into the matter is a gross abdication of proper jurisprudence and an insult to the intended role of the judicial branch.
This is why Justice Barrett basically said that Jackson’s remarks can be ignored.
While writing for the majority in Trump v. CASA on the issue of nationwide injunctions, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett took a proverbial flamethrower to the Biden appointee’s “girl boss” dissent — which Barrett characterized as being “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”
Even Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor has expressed some frustrations with Jackson, gently critiquing her fellow leftist for seemingly not understanding a matter before the high court on Tuesday.
Sotomayor also has a habit of putting Democrat policies ahead of the Constitution and not being all that smart about it. Kagen is just as bad with her rulings, decisions and dissents, she’s just not as stupid about it.
It’s people like Ketanji Brown Jackson and about 95% of the other Democrat judges that make me want to figure out a way to remove them from the bench in a manner other then impeachment. For centuries, the Courts have screwed things up badly with far to many of their decisions, or in some cases, lack of decisions. (John Roberts is notorious for avoiding tough decisions if he can)
Now I expect judges to make bad decisions now and then. They are human…mostly. The problem comes from Justices on the Supreme Court who think they know everything and can’t be bothered to “Do the work” before issuing a ruling or decision. While it should be difficult to remove a Justice, it shouldn’t take an Impeachment in the House of Representatives and a trial and conviction in the Senate. Sadly, how best to do this is not something I can come up with. If you have an idea, the comments are below.
Thatisall
(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
