Top Stories     Top Stories 4    News/CommentaryFeatured

Amy Coney Barrett TORCHES Ketanji Brown Jackson over dissent in birthright citizenship case

admin
June 28, 2025
0Points
0
0
Amy Coney Barrett TORCHES Ketanji Brown Jackson over dissent in birthright citizenship case

A Supreme Court win for the president was also a huge loss for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson when a colleague trampled her issue with “legalese” from the “TOP ROPE!”

As the high court’s term drew near its end, a series of decisions were issued Friday marking victories for conservatives in protecting minors from pornography and gender ideology. Additionally, a 6-3 ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. found that activist judges had gone too far with injunctive relief, particularly in opposing the president’s view on birthright citizenship, leading Justice Amy Coney Barrett to call out Jackson at the pinnacle of “embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Accompanied by several concurring opinions, Barrett had authored the opinion of the court which made a point of addressing the dissent of the most junior member of the bench with a pointed critique, “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. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

“HOLY CRAP!” reacted journalist Nick Sortor. “Amy Coney Barrett absolutely TORCHED Ketanji Brown Jackson in her opion. Even Jackson’s colleagues think she’s an absolute clown. Basically accusing Jackson of being too dumb to read ‘legalese’ …”

President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee went on, “Observing the limits on judicial authority–including as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789–is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law.”

“JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese,’ … she seeks to answer a ‘far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?’ … In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive,” Barrett stated in breaking down her peer’s position before asserting, “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ … That goes for judges too.”

The dissent from President Joe Biden’s only Supreme Court pick had bristled at the “mind-numbingly technical” examination of the case little more than three years after stumbling when asked to provide a definition for the word “woman,” insisting, “I’m not a biologist.”

Jackson wrote, “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? … But that legalese is a smokescreen. It obscures a far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?”

She went on to express, “At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”

While Barrett had frequently presented herself as a bane to conservatives, either recusing herself from key cases or siding with the progressive end of the bench, Friday’s opinion had gone a long way toward restoring favor.

Comedian Shawn Farash posted, “Amy Coney Barrett from the TOP ROPE! She basically says to KBJ here ‘you’re so stupid your opinion isn’t worth addressing or wasting ink on refuting’ … Ketanji Brown-Jackson is the dumbest SCOTUS justice I have ever seen. The shining example of why DEI hires are dangerous,” while others shared repeated instances of Jackson expressing, “I don’t understand,” and a one-word reaction said of Barrett’s opinion, “Dayum…”

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.

Kevin Haggerty
Latest posts by Kevin Haggerty (see all)

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



Source link

admin

Related Posts

1 of 127
Copyright © 2025 right2024 - .
Copyright © 2025 right2024 - .