"Baseless and Insulting": Three Justices Chastise Jackson for a "Groundless and Utterly Irresponsible" Dissent
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 6 months ago • 173 commentsBy: President Joe Biden, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (JONATHAN TURLEY)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Since her appointment by President Joe Biden, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has quickly developed a radical and chilling jurisprudence. Her often sole dissents and accusatory rhetoric have drawn not just the ire of her conservative colleagues but her liberal colleagues. This week, that tension deepened with a stinging rebuke from Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch).
At issue is the finalization of the Court's opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, where the Court ruled 6-3 to ban racial gerrymandering. The Court reaffirmed the use of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to ban intentional racial discrimination in the design of voting districts but effectively found many districts to be unconstitutional in their current form.
There is no reason why the decision should not be finalized except for a blatantly partisan effort to protect the Democrats from losing seats in the midterm elections. After all, if these districts are unconstitutional, why should states guarantee that voters are given representatives chosen free of racial discriminatory preferences?
That question is even more confusing given the long wait for this opinion. Not only was the case reargued, but there were growing complaints about the delay in releasing the opinion.
Complaints increased after a recent book allegedly reported that Justice Elena Kagan had a vocal confrontation with her colleague, former Justice Stephen Breyer, over his push to release the dissents in Dobbs after the leaking of that opinion. Breyer reportedly agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts that the conservative justices were facing increased death threats due to the delay. Kagan allegedly wanted to further delay the release.
In the Callais decision, the delay was curious since there were six solid votes for the majority and not more of a fracturing of opinions. Indeed, the majority opinion's references to the Kagan dissent are relatively brief. Nevertheless, the delay has made it very difficult for states to make changes. A few are moving to delay their primaries or draw new maps under extremely tight calendars.
Regardless of the delay, there is no cognizable or principled reason to withhold the opinion to preserve unconstitutional districts. The case has already been on the docket for an unusually long time due to a reargument.
In its one-paragraph order, the court acknowledged that the Supreme Court's clerk normally waits 32 days after a decision to send a copy of the opinion and the judgment to the lower court. However, it noted that the defenders of the challenged districts had "not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment." Conversely, the other parties raised the need for states to address the impact of the ruling with the approaching elections.
Jackson stood alone in demanding that the unconstitutional districts be effectively preserved for the purposes of this election — guaranteeing Democratic seats in the midterm that could be lost in non-racially discriminatory districts. Neither Kagan nor Justice Sonia Sotomayor would join her in the dissent, despite dissenting from the Callais decision itself.
However, it was her language again that drew the attention of her colleagues.
Justice Jackson lambasted the court's ruling "has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana." In an Orwellian twist, Jackson suggested that others were playing politics as she sought to effectively protect unconstitutional Democratic districts. She suggested that the case exposed "a strong political undercurrent."
In arguably the most insulting line, she lectured her colleagues that this case "unfolds in the midst of an ongoing statewide election, against the backdrop of a pitched redistricting battle among state governments that appear to be acting as proxies for their favored political parties."
She further said that, rather than avoid "the appearance of partiality," the Court's action "is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana's rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map."
Justice Alito had had enough. He noted that her reliance on the 32-day period was a "trivial" objection that put form above substance since no party had asked for reconsideration. It would be waiting for 32 days for no purpose, while the other parties had stated a reasonable and pressing need to finalize the opinion.
He chastised Jackson for a dissent that "lacks restraint." He denounced the dissent as making "baseless and insulting" claims. He particularly objected to the charge that her colleagues were engaging in an unprincipled use of power" as a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge."
What is even more chilling than Jackson's jurisprudence is the fact that she is often cited as the model for Democrats seeking to pack the Court with an instant majority if they retake power. This and other Jackson dissents show why Democrats are so confident that packing the Court will yield lasting control of the government.
Jackson recently told ABC News 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." For some of her colleagues, that cathartic benefit is coming at too high a cost for the Court.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
74 visitors
Justice Jackson uses projection. Sadly, this is what democrats want to put on the Court. Progressives once controlled the Court for decades using the Court to legislate things that the American people had not voted for. They want to pack the Court now to get their way. And the country will get more Justice Jacksons.
They want to pack the Court now to get their way. And the country will get more Justice Jacksons.
Yes, you should just always vote for Republicans to stop the boogey man from getting on the SC. Republicans are doing such a bang up job with all three branches under their control, right? Just keep voting for this never ending shitshow of corruption, lawlessness, and graft - because the alternative would be a more balanced SC … gasp!!!
Possibly some examples of each?....actual, factual examples. Not emotion driven
You must live under a rock with a speaker blaring right wing podcasts into your face 24/7.
I subscribe to zero podcasts,
[✘] Maybe your next reply will be insult free and answers to my request, but I'm not holding my breath.
Maybe you'll stop asking questions that have already been answered dozens of times . Nah.
Progressives controlled the Court for many decades. They used it as a legislature.
"You must live under a rock with a speaker blaring right wing podcasts into your face 24/7."
No. That would be an example of a typical, liberal, fact-free response.
Then you should have no problem linking at least ONE of those "dozens" of answers.
‘Maybe you'll stop asking questions that have already been answered dozens of times . ’
Answering and answering correctly are
two different things. Your answers reflect
the latter
What "American people" are you referring to, Vic? After all, I am one of millions of Americans that is liberal (and democratic party voter) - in your scheme and count you doubt our presence here? Are do you simply ignore us when MAGA rhetoric 'speaks'?
We go by the will of the majority in our elections, don't we?
So, in other words, you want enhanced or extra representation.
I have a question for you and justice Jackson. If majority white districts can elect a Black Representative like Byron Donalds, why can't majority black districts elect a white Representative?
What does that tell us?
We go by the will of the majority in our elections, don't we?
No, that’s every other developed nation. We have an electoral college to skew that actual majority into perceived majorities.
We have an electoral college to prevent mob rule. BTW in the last Presidential election the candidate that won was the winner of both the electoral college and the popular vote.
But we can gerrymander the fuck out of states to make the electoral college moot?
I doubt it. A state like Idaho has different concerns than a state like MA. That will always be reflected in the electoral college.
Doubt away...
The hyperpartisan populists in both wings do not represent the will of the people. They represent a vocal minority of each party and the majority is getting pretty sick of things (one only needs to read the current polling). There will be repercussions and they will not be kind to these populists.
Oh give is a fkng rest already. The ONLY time you all cry about the EC is when you lose an election.
That's likely because when Democrat Presidents win, they win both the electoral college and the popular vote. It's only been Republican Presidents that have won the electoral college but lost the popular vote going all the way back to 1824 when John Quincy Adams won the electoral college as a Democratic-Republican.
We have an electoral college to prevent mob rule.
The irony! The one country that uses an electoral college “to prevent mob rule” is run by someone who exhibits every characteristic of a mob leader. One citizen one vote is mob mentality?!
Lol, trust me, we’d be fine with eliminating the farce of EC under either scenario.
Thats because you conflate big cities with mobs.
thats about five times more than the Grand Canyon, Mt Rushmore and Yosemite National Park combined.
New York City has about 70 million visitors per year.
Travelers love big cities.
It wasn't all that long ago this argument of wanting to abolish the EC was reversed. The Reps wanted it abolished and the Dems were arguing against it.
I've always argued we should keep it. It does what it's supposed to, except that now this new hyperpartisan gerrymandering pretty much makes the argument FOR abolishment - if the majority of a state can disenfranchise their minorities then the country as whole can do the same...
I think it should be abolished because of all the gerrymandering
It's likely because you all can't handle a defeat. Trump won both the EC and Popular Vote this past election and here you are crying about the EC...AGAIN.
Your actions reflect otherwise.
Yes, just like the Roman mob which destroyed a Republic
Caesar declaring himself dictator ended the Roman Republic!
He could not have done that if the door hadn't been rotted through.
Know the history.
Our founders knew it well
How did that work out, for Caesar? Our founders abhored kings and dictators.
I think we need a new party in the center, perhaps we can bring back the old Democratic-Republican Party, and their party color would be purple, and their party animal would be the "Tactical Platypus".
And their party song would be:
They had no long horns, and two big eyes
I commenced to shakin' and I said "Ooh-eee"
It looks like some purple people voters to me
(Two-eyed, no-horned, grounded' purple people voters)
Two-eyed, no-horned, grounded' purple people voters
They sure look good to me.
I said you Purple People voters, don't vote Donnie
I heard them all say in a voice so gruff
"We wouldn't vote for him 'cause he's all fluff!"
Two-eyed, no-horned, grounded' purple people voters
They sure look good to me.
I think gerrymandering should be outlawed. I used to think we should just grid a state, but I since realized that would be a too simple solution for a more complex problem.
I'd be interested in who was primarying into a new moderate party. I see the No Lables party is running Huge Lytle as a candidate for Governor in AZ. He tried to run under Independent Party, but got blocked in court on the ballot name change.
After his assassination he was lionized.
A better question might be how did it work out for his opponents?
You are back again? And who provides the password?
Unfortunately we are back in 1850 with two very distinct regions under one flag. If you recall that eventually led to war.
I think there are a lot more people in the middle than those on the fringes would like to believe.
Those who assassinated Julius Caesar were tracked down and either executed or committed suicide. What followed was a civil war and a succession of tyrants. Julius Caesar ended the Roman Republic. His adopted son Augustus founded the Julian Dynasty. The Roman Republic never returned. You do not seem to know much about the history you so venerate. Julius Caesar married a foreign queen Cleopatra of Egypt, declared himself dictator for life and wrote a will making his son with Cleopatra Caesarian" the hereditary Emperor of Rome. The Roman Senators who assassinated Caesar were actually defending their Republic. It had nothing to do with a mob who rioted as a result. Enlightened?
I can almost agree with that except the EC still provides protection to the small population states, giving them the same voice at the national level. The same as the Senate where each state has two senators. To remove that protection from a presidential election would in my opinion cause more harm than it would help. Candidates and the advertising money would be concentrated in the 25 largest cities and many states due to their small populations would have their voices cut out in the same manner that the current gerrymandering does within states.
I really think a better fix would be to eliminate gerrymandering.
According to Google search, you would be correct -
There are already several other parties that exist. But they never get any traction because they cannot get on the national stage with the two major parties and do not have the money and fund-raising that the two have. The two parties basically control the Presidential Debates and refuse to allow other parties on the stage. The last time a third party candidate was allowed in a presidential debate was Ross Perot.
The only way this could really change would be by the states changing how elections are handled and they won't allow that to happen as the states are run by politicians from the two parties.
That's why I still argue for the EC. Voters on the coasts shouldn't be fucking with the people who grow our food.
Agreed, but who's going to do that since it always favors the party in power?
Vic,
I don't like what you are implying. I don't know who this is, and their comment is not offensive.
More unfounded moronic claims.
Welcome back Tess
Because Donalds is a conservative and so he must be doing something conservatives wish him to do. . . and, I am being nice with that answer. I am going to go out on a limb to suggest Ms. Jackson won't see your question so. . . . as for electing a white candidate of their choice blacks are 'notorious' for selecting from a DIVERSITY of candidates. . . when a white candidate steps up to satisfy voter needs. . . s/he will be selected.
Yep, very true. There's really no mechanism to fix this. Plenty of people will counter with 'just vote the bad ones out' except they keep voting "their people" back in. The re-election rates are very high, something like 98% for the House and 88% for the Senate in the last election alone.
Reelection Rates Over the Years • OpenSecrets
People can ask and pled and write letters to newspapers, but that's about as effective as asking the fox to stop entering the chicken coop. Approval ratings for Congress today is around 10%, but people continue to re-elect the same people. I'm concerned about what the future will hold for my grandchildren, but without change I don't hold a lot of hope for the future of the country.
Sorry, Perrie, but it is obvious who this is. It's in the screen name. I'm just waiting for the racist, bigoted and hatred of the PNs myself and others received preciously. It's inevitable.
crickets....
False.
Caesar NEVER married Cleopatra. They former a personal & political alliance.
Julius Caesar ended the Roman Republic.
False.
The longest lasting Republic (5 centuries) was undone by economic inequality and civil strife. The Roman Senate was devised to legislate and act in the interests of a single city: Rome. The Senate had many problems with serving the civilized world, which eventually fell under its jurisdiction.
Here is the problem Perrie: Supposedly a new member with a uniquely familiar screen name chooses to say the following to me in her very first post to me:
"Trumpturd is nothing but a pedophile, rapist, sexual predator, and felon, to name a few."
And I wasn't even talking to that individual.
It seems odd that you read this article, but not that one. Did someone direct you to my comment here Perrie?
So, whites are more than willing to vote for Black candidates like Donalds and Obama, but blacks in these constructed black districts where they are a majority have great difficulty in electing a white candidate.
Should we consider the candidates they have elected on the basis of performance? What have the recent mayors of Chicago done? What kind of human beings were they?
You may believe what you just said, but history tells me it isn't so.
And yet the LIARS lie when they say they want 'peace' and freedom between us. . . these self-righteous bigots want control and nothing less that control over everybody that is not MAGA in this country and as far-flung as they can take it.
White Americans can vote for whomsoever they wish. For the record, all my congressional folks are white and non-Black. . . and I repeat voted for them. . .even when a black candidate aspired to call one of them out for representing a black majority city. . . So I can't shrink my mind down to this pigeon-hole narrative MAGA supporters are CONSTRUCTING.
MAGA supporters clearly do not know or respect me or liberals so the 'work' here is to find ways to talk sh-t about things y'all can't possibly understand or worse ACCEPT IN OTHER.
Don't worry. I'll watch. I was the one who banned her in the first place.
You know I do read what is posted more than you think, Vic. Sheesh.
I agree, the numbers don't lie and at the same time the number of self identified 'independents' are growing. The fix is to start supporting a 3rd party moderate in early primaries at the state level and pushing that to as many states as possible. It would take effort on many people and sustained for years. It's possible, but sadly maybe not probable.
Like I said, you got that whole era bassackwards and wrong, again. Now go on and lecture us about us not knowing history...
eeeek! a qualified black woman sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land. whatever shall xtian conservatives do now?
There are thousands of black men and women who are far more qualified to be a SCOTUS jurist. This one is an idiot and was hired as a DEI....straight from Biden's mouth.
And yet none ever seem good enough for some unless they kneel to white conservative Christians and kiss their ring.
Obviously you don't pay attention to what your side does to minorities that dare escape the democrat plantation.
Does the term Uncle Tom ring a bell?
A common go to insult by many leftists to any one of these minorities that dare make the switch when they see the light.
Vulgar insults and mockery are MAGA supporters' calling 'card.' Thank goodness, MAGA supporters are not allowed to publicly call her what they think in their hearts.
I think MAGA supporters think Shermichael Singleton is great! You know for a bunch of INDIVIDUALS who profess individuality MAGA supporters are crazy glued on Trump's 'teats,' .. . and Trump would have it no other way. It is: THE TRUMP COLLECTION!
What light? There is a light in Trump's butt attracting minorities?! Who knew?!
‘Vulgar insults and mockery are MAGA supporters' calling 'card’
You should reevaluate that thought. It was Biden who said he was going to appoint a black woman. He did’t say a smart black woman. Biden made her a DEI hire by announcing the required checked boxes that his appointee needed to fill
what a horrible way to refer to maga justice clarence thomas. /s
Isn’t his middle name Uncle?
No hardcore MAGA bigots made her a "DEI" hire. Claim this talking point fair and square, because it is a MAGA supporters talking point and not truth in any shape or fashion. All y'all do is mock Others. And frankly, we have no choice except to mock MAGA.
And as for Biden saying 'a smart black women'. . .how childish is that. . . 'mister, mrs, miss, MAGA supporter' had he said that it would not have changed a damn thing about mockers mocking!
Yes it is...and you leftists should stop doing it.
Forty Years of Attacks and Slurs Against Justice Thomas | Opinion
Georgia Democrat calls Justice Clarence Thomas an ‘Uncle Tom’, admits he does not know origin of term | The Post Millennial | thepostmillennial.com
Correct.
It was Biden
When Justice Thomas starts defending people properly and humanely (since that is what every last one of us is at the end of the day). . .he will get liberal respect just like he gets conservative respect. As long as that fool hurts people and pretends that Blacks can take more pain (body, mind, and spirit) than other groups he can pat sand. When situations are just and right. . . he won't have to ask for people to ease up him. . . there will be NOTHING to say or write against him. As long, as he imagines he is some privileged (white) man trapped in black skin. . . he can pack sand! BTW, why the hell does Thomas THINK billionaires are lavishing their wealth on him. . .because he is good to look at - a 'China doll'? Nope! They are buying is power and influence and using him like as a 'tool' and a cheap one at that! Of course, this is my opinion as I see it from where I see it.
Incorrect. I can see where the confusion occurs. A rewrite: " No, hardcore MAGA bigots made her a "DEI" hire.
Thank you . And, you're welcome.
So Biden is a hardcore MAGA bigot now, because HE is the one that hired the DEI candidate.
I think 81 million that "voted" for him will be a little upset at you.
Better than another AWR hire. We have enough Arrogant White Racist's in every sector of American society; it was clearly time to get some other perspectives on the court.
But yet your side had to get the worst.
Seems to be a pattern with most on the left.
"in my opinions how I feel about the issues"
Sorry yer Honor - butt a court of law is not to drag out your personal opinions and attempt to turn them into "legal opinions" - let Congress play that game. That ain't a game for SCOTUS.
GPT-15 mini (AI):
Summary: Louisiana v. Callais — breakdown of opinions and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s position
Case basics
Issue: Whether Louisiana’s congressional redistricting map (post‑2020) unlawfully diluted Black voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution (racial gerrymandering/§2 vote‑dilution challenge).
Procedural posture: Challenge to Louisiana’s map; Supreme Court reviewed lower‑court findings about whether a second majority‑Black district was required.
Court’s disposition (majority)
Holding: The Court reversed/remanded (or reversed) the lower court’s remedy that required creation of an additional district (exact remedial posture depends on the particular opinion text).
Reasoning (majority themes):
Emphasized limits on courts imposing race‑based districting absent clear legal standards being met.
Criticized lower court’s factual findings or the application of the three‑part Gingles framework (precondition for §2 claims) as insufficiently supported.
Stressed narrowness in requiring racially configured districts and deference to state legislatures’ districting choices unless legal standards are satisfied.
Concurrences / dissents (key points)
Dissenting justices argued the lower court correctly applied Section 2 and Gingles, identifying that Black voters in Louisiana were sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute an additional majority‑Black district and that the enacted plan diluted their voting power.
Dissenters emphasized historical discrimination, racially polarized voting evidence, and the remedial role of courts under §2 to remedy vote dilution.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s position
Joined: Justice Jackson joined the dissent (or joined the dissenting opinion) that would have upheld the lower court’s finding that Section 2 required an additional Black‑opportunity district.
Her reasoning (as joined or expressed):
Agreed that plaintiffs met the Gingles preconditions (sufficient size, geographic compactness, and political cohesion).
Found record evidence of racially polarized voting and that the enacted map reduced Black voters’ ability to elect their candidate of choice.
Stressed the remedial duty under Section 2 to correct dilution and to account for the practical realities of how race and politics interact in Louisiana.
Highlighted harms to representative democracy when large minority blocs are prevented from translating votes into seats.
Practical effect
The dissent (including Jackson’s view) argued for preserving the remedial judgment that would create an additional Black‑opportunity district; the majority’s reversal narrowed immediate remedies available under §2 in this context and signaled caution about courts ordering race‑conscious districting absent robust findings.
Courts are for people. . .not people for courts. That is, living and breathing humans are involved in the judgements, mind you judgements of judges. . . not 'Inerts.'
BTW, as AI improves. . . let AI be 'enpaneled' as the Highest Court (for life). Then, we will all experience 'rank, objective, justice' from a virtual source kin to none of us! I am pretty sure that some selfish and 'ME-ME-ME" republicans and conservatives won't like this 'thought' - unless they can program the AI themselves with their proclivities
Note: I have not digested this GPT-5 mini information above due to the hour of night. I may have more to say on it in tomorrow's light.
Oh, I'm sure some people would want that.
But what happened historically has very little relevance to today. The lesson here is that we should never deviate from the Constitution in dealing with complex problems.
[✘]
I am sure some people will NOT want that, too! Namely, some conservatives who see a conspiracy behind everything they do not/can not overpower.
That aside, we have to accept truth. . . no matter its source. As truth is Truth.
MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN. . . means what, Vic? And if/when you respond do NOT waste my time with bullshit. . . I will ignore it and not even bother with any sort of reply. What does your expression: "Make American Great Again" profoundly mean to MAGA supporters? Not you. . . ALL MAGA SUPPORTERS!
Use GPT-5 mini (AI).
What the heck you think I referenced it for? (Hint: The 'question' is the Subject line.)
Don't worry. You can do it. We all have to learn how to use these 'new-fangled' intellectual tools. The future is coming. . . and much of that old sh-t men profess and stir up will fall by the wayside! I would assist you, it's just that I feel strongly that you wouldn't want "DEI" assistance!
GPT-15?[✘]
It's referenced because you couldn't do the work and find the actual document.
So. . . you did not read it. Lead a horse to water and still a horse won't . . . .
The fact is, that some people live in a mental period when AI is an 'alien influence' changes nothing about the present forces align to put AI in competition for civilized and SOPHICATED increase in speed, efficiency, and earth 'advancement'! Keep 'hammering' away at the equivalent speed of manual 'typewriters' and watch the "langoliers" (fictional eaters of past times) devour MAGA supposed "present." : )
She's flat out telling everybody that her PERSONAL opinion will take first chair. This sets a very bad position for a justice to be in.
wonder what the reaction would be if another Justice or Judge said something like that?
We both know those results. Instead it's the DEI appointee so...
Maybe put them in head of Trump in the impeachment que.
Well, since that OPINION is intransigent. . . it is INVALID.
You call it intransigent, the rest of the world calls it stuck on stupid.
And still a DEI hire
Yes, intransigence conservatives. Stuck in the past. . . pining away for the days when the country was young and they could own other people - nowadays, can't own others legally. . .so just wish to take away others means of existence outside of the MAGA supporters shadow. We don't want to be MAGA supporters, we are okay with MAGA supporters staying in their lane.
Personally, I wish every black person in this country would pick up and leave red states to their 'redness.' That is a discussion for another day, however.
What I find odd is that the left is all for DEI policies, but when you mention that somebody is a DEI hire / appointee they all get their panties in a wad like DEI is a bad thing.
[✘]
it’s amazing. They tell you how wonderful it while denying it has any real world impact whatsoever and never helped anyone.
It is amazing. The mental gymnastics involved is baffling.
What I find foolish. . .is this comment. So let me help with that.
The reason why MAGA supporters can not understand Others is because of selfish aggression and perverse competition AGAINST the citizens that inhabit the same spaces they do! It is like the Right hand is trying its best to establish for the BODY that it would be a lot better without its Left hand. . . therefore the Right hand has a right to choke the Left hand to death!
You are the arguing for race discrimination against people who inhabit the same spaces you do.
herefore the Right hand has a right to choke the Left hand to death!
You believe that without the state engaging in racial discrimination minorities will die? I think they can compete without discriminating against others. Sad you don't.
Then she should quit the court and write a book.
Well, she is a judge. . .and passed the test for a lifetime appointment and we are not. . . she has a RIGHT to state her opinion. . . if not try to IMPEACH her. Go ahead MAGA, Try it.
Except a Supreme Court Justice is not there to give opinion, they are there to exercise judicial review to ensure laws and executive actions align with the Constitution, resolve disputes involving federal law or state conflicts, and provide a final court of appeal.
If someone doesn't like a law then they need to work with Congress to get the law changed. Not to do it from the bench based on their opinion.
As for their testing, they are vetted by the FBI and the White House but it is a vote in the Senate that puts them on the bench. As the Democrats held the majority in 2022 when Justice Jackson was confirmed (as Biden was the President and Harris was the VP which gave the Democrats the tie-breaking vote for this) I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Justice Jackson was given a difficult testing. Unless you want to tell me that Justice Kavanaugh was just as rigorously tested...
I was going to respond but I can't say it better than you already have.
So the democrat test for a lifetime appointment is to check a few boxes?
Yes, she was a DEI appointment.
Then what is the dissenting opinion that almost always gets written when a ruling isn't unanimus?
Oh, that's right, it's a Supreme Court Justices opinion. Weird.
I was unaware that Justice Jackson had changed any law from the bench. If this is the case please link where she has done this. Otherwise, this seems like a pretty simple dissenting opinion. So, what's with all the rightwing conservative theatrics and lies? Oh, that's right, she's a black female Supreme court justice who dared give an opinion that some weaselly weak little bigots find offensive.
Yes, and the people elected those senators. It's how our system works.
There is no requirement for 'testing' of a SCOTUS nominee. The President selects a nominee, the Senate judiciary committee conducts a thorough investigation, including a review of the nominee's background, finances, and legal career which is followed by a public hearing and then the Senate votes to confirm them. The amount of scrutiny is up to the Senate and the Senate judiciary committee before the confirmation, so regardless of how some poor little dipshits feel about a justice's opinion, Justice Jackson will be on the supreme court for a very long time.
Jonathan Turdley is just a smug, bitter, jealous conservative law professor who found fame stroking other white rightwing conservative Christian's egos as he does again with this tired slop.
Turley's bread is buttered by Fox News. They made a D-list celebrity out of him.
Recommend you learn the differences between "Personal" opinion versus "Legal" opinion.
Law is based on "Legal" - not "personal".
Criticism of the author is a far cry from discussing the intent of the article.
You can think anything a MAGA supporter wishes. . . as I can too. However, at the end of their set of experiences each member on the court is there because a president put him or her there. Now, unless you have genuine, reasonable, and legal justification for a/ny removal. . . wishing won't get MAGA supporters there.
As for Congress, yes, right is right and wrong is wrong. . . and MAGA supporters do not appear to care about all the corrupting influences operating there in any number of 'circles' and circumstances - many beyond the scope of this article. So yes, MAGA republicans and conservatives can tell congress to "do its job" - and that is it. . .as far as MAGA supporters are concerned 'ONE-WAY' is the way that all Americans should live. . . even when they are not MAGA supporters. Makes sense. . .huh? /s
I mean, a liberal by definition is entitled to as many rights and privileges and liberties and prosperities as conservatives, and yet here we are will a sitting MAGA supported president who recently came to a microphone and stated he hates his opponents during a Charlie Kirk service-publicly. We pretty much know where MAGA supporters are coming from with that alone!
Try it, please.
But it has happened, hasn't it?
When Roe V Wade was decided there was little pretense that it had anything to do with the Constitution.
Some really hate Turley, don't they?
That's a big ask.
At her hearing she couldn't define what a woman was. She was confirmed by a vote of 53-47 under the recently altered rules by with it only takes a simple majority to confirm a judge. There was a time when the likes of a Ketanji Brown Jackson would NEVER have been confirmed.
Btw there is another issue here that we all seemed to have missed. There is a Supreme Court procedural rule, (more a common practice than a rule) which sometimes pauses a ruling 32 days to become official. The Court was asked to dispense with it so that Lousisiana would be able to redistrict before the midterm elections (now 6 months away.) The Court agreed to that and that seems to have set Jackson off. She wanted the delay. Three Justices then questioned her motives.
We all know the conservative courts motives and Justice Jackson called them out on it. The conservative court is the one being partisan here trying desperately to get this ruling out before the midterms in an effort to aid conservatives instead of all Americans. So fuck them and fuck the tired little whiny bitches defending their obvious partisanship and are trying to flip the script and call Justice Jackson the partisan one for daring to question their motives.
I think it may be the Dems who fucked themselves. We'll know in about 6 months
I think you are in a bubble if you believe MAGA are winning. Trump has a record low approval rating.
With all of those moving from blue to red states the writing is on the wall for democrats. The GOP might gain 14 seats via redistricting, and after the next census they may gain 40 seats in the House. The democrat party is on course to be a minority party.
Thank God.
Yes, they have long been the party for minorities to feel welcome and safe.
Many blacks disagree with you today
More young Black voters may be leaning Republican, surveys show : NPR
Cryptic much?? Please do tell us when that time was, Vic.
This is from your link:
So? I never said they were coming to the light in droves. It takes time for some to become educated in who is really looking out for their interests. Many of them have voted democrat for decades. The young generation sees where the plantation party is going and they don’t want anything to do with it.
Ah, so you're saying you don't believe the nearly 90% of black Americans that vote for democrats are educated? Not that I'm surprised at something like that coming from those who support a party that got caught intentionally trying to disenfranchise black voters and is the party confederate defenders and other white supremacists have rallied around.
Stop putting words in my posts I did not type. I said it takes time to get educated on who is looking out for their best interests, and it sure as hell isn't democrats.
"those who support a party that got caught intentionally trying to disenfranchise black voters"
Show where that is happening. Exactly what black person is not able to vote. Be specific with that person's name. BTW...the USSC ruled that districts based on race are unconstitutional. No one has said you cannot vote for a black person in a predominate white district. It has happened dozens of times over the decades. Your argument carries no water.
"party confederate defenders and other white supremacists have rallied around."
Another lie as there is no proof of that. However, your party is openly supporting a nazi in Maine.
Rule of thumb for many years.
"If a democrat accuses you of something, you can be assured they are already doing it.
That has never been proven wrong.
Perhaps you need a bigger shovel to get out of that hole. Anyone with more than half a brain knows exactly what you implied when you said, " It takes time for some to become educated in who is really looking out for their interests."
Okay.
.
.
I get that those who don't want to hear the truth, especially those actively trying to hide it because they are themselves massive fucking bigots, will try and claim these facts aren't true, that the sources are somehow wrong or not to be believed, but of course what they can't do is deny the actual facts. So, while I expect plenty of twisting and turning, lying and obfuscating as per the usual because that's what dishonest dumb fuck bigots do when confronted with their own ugly racist reflection, the rest of us can see the obvious truth and aren't fooled by such loser tactics.
Yet another rant based on emotion.
Can you name ONE African American, besides those in prison or are felons, that cannot vote? I asked you this question in my last post, and for some reason s/, you did not address it.
Before you start insinuating racism, in most states you can't vote of you are in prison or are a felon. You used blacks as your example. I just continued it.
Virginia democrats did not follow their Constitution, and the Virginia SC agreed with the plaintiffs. Whining about it is not going to change that.
So, you're just rejecting the courts findings and the reality that regardless of why there are voting trends among black Americans, Republicans studied them and then crafted voting restrictions that targeted African American voters "with almost surgical precision,". Trying to avoid those facts and claim that blacks can still vote regardless of those laws completely misses the point that Republicans are actively attempting to disenfranchise eligible black American voters because they know the vast majority vote Democratic. But I get the reasons Republicans would try and weasel and squirm their way out of the facts when the facts are so inconvenient for them. They have to try desperately to change the narrative, and claim Democrats are the ones being racist even when its beyond obvious to anyone with more than half a brain what the Republicans are doing. But Republicans do it anyway because they're betting on the fact that most of their supporters aren't that mentally savvy or educated and they'll believe the lie, which clearly is still fooling some. Sad sorry saps.
Yet another rant based on emotion and no facts given.
Can you name any black person or even minority to cannot vote?
You do realize that the majority of blacks in Congress represent majority white districts, right? Maybe you don't because left wingers refuse to believe that racism is a money making machine in this country for race baiters, and for that to go away will make those people have to grift elsewhere.
Talk about a fact-less rant. I showed you the facts, linked the courts findings yet you still continue to try to deflect and distract. Not that I'm surprised.
Maybe you should have linked something less than nine years old.
I asked chat gtp if North Carolina has voter ID laws. This is what I got...
"Yes — North Carolina does have voter ID laws, and they are currently in effect.
North Carolina voters are required to show a photo ID when voting in person. Acceptable IDs include a driver’s license, state ID, U.S. passport, military/veteran ID, tribal ID, approved student or employee IDs, and others. Voters who cannot present an ID may still vote by completing an ID Exception Form.
The law has been the subject of ongoing legal challenges, but courts have allowed it to remain in force. For example, a federal judge upheld the 2018 voter ID law despite discrimination claims, and the law has been implemented since 2023"
I also media bias checked the Brennan Center for Justice. Even media bias says this "source is left of center left.
Telling me that I post fact less rants is the height of irony of your post
Also, I see you continue to refuse to provide the name of ANY black or other minority that wll not be able to vote.
I'm surprised s/
Blacks and other minorities could vote (thanks to the 15 amendment), it would be nice if republican tactics and strategies to hinder and otherwise make voting difficult, complex, and not in the "spirit" of voting would dissolve. I no longer have faith in that, however.
BTW, can you tell me when liberals and progressives (mind what is being asked) set up: Poll taxes, "grandfather clauses" (for voting), literacy tests, and all-white primaries?
Name one thing Republicans are doing or trying to do to keep anyone from voting. As far as the 15th Amendment, it was democrats that were against it. Puts things in a different perspective, doesn't it.
"Poll taxes, "grandfather clauses" (for voting), literacy tests, and all-white primaries?"
There are no polling taxes, no grandfathering anything, no literacy tests, and where does it say blacks cannot run in a primary?
When was the last time you were told you could not vote?
That is the question I asked. Until you deal with it properly and honestly you do not deserve to ask me anything. If we must talk pass each other than so be it. You will not screw over or 'diss' my direct questions, nevertheless! This game of feigning engagement while ignoring subject matter issues is not going to work for me.
I have always voted. And if you would look at the images attached as a photo on this article. . . so can those representatives within the shots. . . and yet there they are representing a problem/issue bigger than themselves. BTW, that is the point of this site. . . do discuss issues, solutions, and complexities in the news. MAGA supporters should deal with it.
‘have always voted.’
Ok…so nobody is being disenfranchised. Glad You agree.
That is you ridiculously jumping to conclusion and confirming a narrative. You can do that. . .and ignore commonsense.
Can you explain how you were disenfranchised from voting? Who told you that you could not vote and blocked you from a voting booth?
Don't try to make this complexity (as caused by MAGA conservatives, namely Trump loyalists up and down the line) into something reasonable. Voting is a franchise, and if MAGA really gave a damn they would spend their time making voting easier across the board. . . . That is not what Trump supporters are doing as we all know. At least, those of us know it who are not part of the ruse. Any 'discrepancy,' which does not allow for a correction to voting power sufficient for all is an attack on the individual and collective 'group' of voters!
Fortunately, I live in California which believes in voting power for the individual (no matter his or her status or station in regular voting). So far, my state has staved off the rank and raw bullsh-t that plagues other states. So I can vote and do use the right with purpose each and every cycle. You should understand by now that "I" do not represent a whole of anything beyond myself. . .thus, the republican MAGA conservative 'Cult' has not been able to 'game' California's voting roll or system!
Actually i think it IS fairly simple to vote, but you need 3 things to do so and all 3 things, not just one or two .
1. Citizenship is the big one one MUST be a Citizen .
2 . Live within the jurisdiction one intends to vote .
3 . not have lost ones right to vote through legal adjudication or conviction in court .
All 3 things are fairly easy to prove one way or the other .
So maybe you can tell me why our voting franchise is subject to overkill:
GPT 5 mini (AI)
1. Strict voter ID laws.
2. Voter roll purges.
3. Reduction in early voting and polling locations.
4. Mail-in ballot restriction.
5. Consolidation of precincts and polling place closures.
6. Aggressive signature-matching.
7. Limiting Voter Registration access.
8. Targeted enforcement and criminalization.
9. Limiting ballot drop boxes and ballot-return options.
10. Partisan control of election administration.
The above 'countermeasures' are negatives that frustrate the freedom we expect to have when it comes to having a harmonious voting experience. Additionally, they 'outweigh' the three scenarios you list!
It is as though some conservatives do not trust their fellow citizens and yet have nominal reason/s not to trust election officials in charge.
Looking at that list , it is hard not to feel like this meme
where he is an Ib entering a geriatric broken body expected to "fix something , but doesnt know where to start after seeing all the problems .
1 i dont see as a problem people should be able to prove they are who they say they are
2 people die , or move so a purge is not a problem to me .
3 is pretty much the same as 5 , early or absentee voting is a privilege for those that actually cant make it to the polls on voting day and IMO has been abused and should be strictly regulated to only those that need it and not as a convenience .
4 there should be rules for mail in and they should mirror absentee voting .
5 already addressed in 3.
6 never seen or had it happen so a nothing burger on that one from me .
7 Most states ( those who control voter registration ) , have motor /voter laws , same day registration at the polls , or their county clerks have generous business day hrs to get this done .
8 this one might need an example or explanation.
9 that one is one to take up with a state or its election board or even its legislature . each state is different .
10 That would be a state issue and which party is in charge at the moment , any state i have lived in , 4 so far in 64 years , had poll watchers from both parties as well as some independent watchers present .
There are my thoughts on your 10 points . and they still do not outweigh the 3 conditions that must be met to actually vote in my opinion, because if you dont meet those 3 conditions , your 10 points dont matter and are not of concern . .
Now to demonstrate fairness. I ask a similar question for DEMOCRATS:
GPT-5 mini (AI)
1. Targeted ballot-access rules pushed in friendly jurisdictions.
2. Tactical use of ballot harvesting and third-party return (where allowed).
3. Large-scale voter registration drives targeted to demographically favorable groups.
4. Litigation and administrative challenges to restrictive voting rules.
5. Resource concentration on high-turnout precincts (get out the vote focus).
6. Use of targeted messaging that discourages turnout for opposing groups.
7. Strategic deployment of poll workers and poll-site resources in friendly areas.
8. Legal and legislative efforts to shape redistricting and ballot access rules.
9. Challenging voter purges and promoting broad interpretation of voter eligibility.
10. Coordinated partnership with NGOs for mobilization and services.
Analysis summary (concise)
- Overlap with common civic engagement: Many items are standard voter‑mobilization tactics that increase turnout; whether they are “suppression” depends on framing, intent, and outcomes.
- Legal/ethical line: Actions that genuinely expand eligible voters’ access are lawful and pro‑participation; coercion, intimidation, knowingly false information, or illegal tampering cross into suppression and misconduct.
- Remedies: Clear, uniform rules; neutral administration; transparency; prosecution when laws are broken; and robust nonpartisan voter‑education and monitoring.
Of course, people can provide evidence of who they are. . . the question is why does republicans DESIGN 'custom' ID with an analysis of the difficulties liberals and students may have in producing validation articles. Voting is a FREE exercise of the right and where it can be proven FALSIFIABLE it should. The exercise itself should not 'imagine' innocence until proven guilty and then guilty only to the point of where it exist. . . not to generalize on the whole.
Of course, people die and that speaks for itself 'naturally.' That is NOT the purge mentioned in this case: That purge is removal due to inactivity, administrative mismatches, or "use it or lose it" style maintenance. Many people only discover their removal after they arrive with expectation to vote!
*GPT-5 mini (AI) credited.
Okay, probably owe the forum this one: WHY?
Simple answer? personal opinion , I have used absentee voting for quite some time because voting day coincides with hunting seasons here and i am usually NOT within the jurisdiction i am suppose to be voting . but doing so conforms with the established rules to do so .
As for #8 , my opinion is that the only ones that should legally be allowed to assist some one with a ballot , not filled out at the polls , is an immediate family member and possibly a licd outside care giver .
The rest of your AI cut and paste can pretty much support that statement , after all campaign workers are not allowed in the voting booth at a polling place with an individual after all and should not have any influence direct or implied in a persons home .
again , all just personal opinion from my part, no one is required to agree , following the old adage an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure .
I accept your opinion regarding your personal 'privilege.' You do understand that others have their reasons (apart from say, "hunting"), right? The provision of absentee voting takes into account that the OBJECT of early voting is. . . participation in the franchise. As it has been established that some will not vote otherwise due to their extenuating circumstances on election day itself!
As for who is 'assisting' with the vote ballot choosing process. . . we can not know that outside of people expressly stating such "data." Afterall, anybody. . .even on Newstalkers. . . can influence through discussion, another's choice of candidate/s.
At the end of the day, you have expressed a sincere rationale (voting across hunting season). . . and others have the same ASSIST for their various inconveniences and circumstances. Here is another example (case in point): Some people can have very important things occurring on election day. . . a wedding, a medical emergency, an unfortunate and untimely death, or as to living. . . a competitive job interview. Now which of those circumstances do you think an individual would choose to act on. . . the listed ones or go stand (and languish) in a vote line?
And, one should not look at their decision to vote early. . . which is allowable and causes no PROVABLE harm sufficient to deny it. . . you do not wish to deny its use - do you?
I have seen what you wrote , i have to apologize for being "in and out " currently .
i will muse on your comment , while i try to repair a damaged temp greenhouse that decided it could fly during a somewhat minor wind event for here yesterday(50mph straight line wind gust) that i got to watch first hand .
Thankfully nothing was IN said greenhouse yet .
Okay! Great success on your project! I can only imagine the forces involved, while we get high winds here. . . nothing with the force of a straight line gust has ever hit us.
Ok I gave up for the day , getting to fat and old to be doing manual labor in 90 degree direct sun .
I gave a thought to what has been posted , and what i have come up with , strictly for myself , is that i am somewhat content with how the state I happen to live in does things and how they follow election laws , both state and federal . That does not mean there doesnt need to be some tweaking done to stay current and abreast with changing laws .
We have 50 different states with 50 different ways of doing things , and my opinion of how the other 49 do things is not going to change anything , no ones is . It will be up to the legislatures and ultimately the voters within those states who will have the say on how things get done . And that is where i sit back and wait and see what they all come up with for themselves . other than that , not my problem .
As for the project , i will say almost half done , spent more time scrounging through my pile of "I might use this some day" looking for T- posts , then cutting them to size , and then making sure i had enough welded fencing to make the roof , seems when it took flight , it went up about 15 ft , then did a 180 and came crashing down on all 4 of the support ribs for the roof, making them unusable . everything else was salvageable , the cover , irrigation system, sides and over all square footprint .
Right now the footprint is set and square , 4 t posts are set in all the corners even with the sides height , with 2 more t posts per side, and i have 2/3rds of the roof mounted in place , the only way i could have anchored it all better is if i set it in cement .
Fingers crossed , its enough.
Good you recognize and accept the limitations placed on you and the associated risk of heat issues and such. It is wise to be careful in your 'now' and the realization there is always tomorrow. . . for the living to add onto successfully.
You may need to set the posts in cement, at the end of the day. Especially if high winds are a thing, and heavy downpours are regular in your neck of the country. Because it seems you had a 'perfect storm' scenario that sought to undermine the ground supporting the beams.
As for the reason we began sharing, I think people should be frank and open to let people vote within the franchise. From what I hear, the states are doing 'amazing' at seeking higher voter participation. . . states should applaud themselves that they are stimulating the citizens to act in our political undertakings and decision-making. It is a case where we can speak of success. Unfortunately, those who would curtail and 'crush' the spirit of voter participation increase are missing the point. We need people to vote and to vote HONORABLY by using all available options that are positive aids. Because, at the end of the day, we truly are a better nation when we act together.
Like i said it was bought as temporary, i figured ild have to do some tinkering next year , not this year . i figured 4 cinder blocks and 3 75# pieces of drill pipe would keep it in place , it didnt . Now its anchored by 8 t-posts driven 3 ft into the ground and i will reuse that drill pipe .
i basically wanted the cover and the misting irrigation system. it wasnt expensive from temu.
another reason for the misting capability inside , we have been in drought for the past 5 yrs at least, that capability will let me keep minimal water to the plants i intend to grow inside . and last hard freeze here usually happens in the first week of June first hard freeze is usually oct ,so for veggies i have a shortened season .
Just to let you know how bad the drought is here in the inter mnt west , they are talking right now that this year could be as dry as 88, when Yellowstone went poof in smoke ,
It is also bad enough that i just read that cattle ranchers are currently sellling the cattle they would have held on to until at least October , they dont have the grass , cant afford the feed and dont have the water . and Water is the big one , with out it you dont get any of the others . So better to sell now while the cattle are still of weight , than to wait and they lose weight, they moved almost 9000 head last weekend , where they might normally do 7-800 head . least thats what has been reported in the cowboy state daily , and wyofile news .
Im betting most people dont know how much meat of all kinds they consume in an average year. Y'all are likely guessing i know how much i do though, and i only allow myself a 1/2 pound a day . But then again , its only me i am feeding .
It’s such a damming quote and she doesn’t even realize why.
Many on the left dont seem to either.
She’s an embarrassment. The one good thing is she’s such an embarrassment it may push the more intelligent progressives slightly to the right to avoid agreeing with her.
Of course, she could not never please MAGA supporters until and unless she decided to take her 'ass' home, cook for a living, and cries "Jesus" doing sex. /Sarc.
Another day, more juvenile swpeeeing generalizations about maga no matter what the topic. So it goes,..
Most DEI appointees don't.
Well, MAGA supporters could always change and diversify. . . and since you do clearly don't plan to talk about republicans short of how 'glorious' (/s) y'all imagine yourselves to be taking away other people's dreams and livelihood like y'all are all there is. . . what you say to me. . . is INVALIDATED.
More dumb rhetoric from MAGA supporters/haters. I'm sorry that blacks and liberals OFFEND you. Black people can't change their skin. And liberals can't match be extreme conservatives. . . MAGA supporters, . . . y'all are stuck with us!
Where did I mention ANYBODYS race? I'll wait.
You see any MAGA candidates (that have not fallen off Trump 'teat') being fired and their lives and livelihood ruined? We know what MAGA supporters are about, as the silence speaks volumes about intents and purposes! BTW, MAGA -Tennessee just showed it UGLY American side COVETING the black vote by assigning RED all over its voting map. We SEE MAGA clearly. . . the silence speaks!
Oh, and we minorities have been dealing with MAGA supporters even before the term. We know the type 'by heart.' Always without compassion and understanding. We do not want to be like MAGA supporters!
So, what's the point of whipping this dead horse? Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has lived up to the low expectations of the Biden administration. Jackson is exactly what she claimed to be -- an activist judge. A rubber-stamp Senate allowed Brown to occupy a seat on the highest court.
What are Trump Republicans hoping to achieve? Pack the courts? Install more activist judges? Gerrymander a spineless rubber-stamp Congress for Trump's benefit? Are Trump Republicans deliberately trying to destroy any balance to avoid Constitutional checks? That's not any different than Joe Biden's rubber-stamp Congress and activist judiciary.
There's a lot of smoke but no BBQ. If the idea to to gripe for the sake of griping then Trump Republicans are no different than Democrats. The only difference is whose brisket is being charred.
Okay Nerm, what expectations are those? Detail it to me since you imply you know them enough to refer to them. Please do. Otherwise, that is poor rhetoric and intolerable.
How is a nomination of a Black woman per se as you put it 'living up to Biden Administration 'low expectations'? And, if/when you answer tailor you response to the question asked. . . please.
As the links I provided explain, Joe Biden was expecting a Black woman that could be approved by the Senate. Ketanji Brown Jackson met those criteria.
Joe Biden did what every president does. . . select his candidate or candidates to be a supreme court justice. They get appointed when passing the senate review process and a vote. You can decry the process (as I and others sometime do). As any good (or bad) president will tell you it is your prerogative to 'cry' and gripe. . . or cheer and congratulate.
What I do not do is try to MOCK and demean honest people trying to make the system work for those whom need it to work the most. There is not a DAMN thing wrong with a president stating he wants a black woman . . . even a non-educated one for that matter . . .which is not the case with Justice Jackson. . . getting to the office.
Why?
Because as you already know, I repeat, ALREADY KNOW a president can appoint 'the butt of a bad joke' to the SCOTUS - if s/he is stupid or has a cruel sense of humor and all mockers will be able to do is MOCK. The president does not even have to appoint a lawyer or a judge to the highest COURT in the land. And it is CONSTITUTIONALLY permissible.
At the least, you should respect that Biden appointed a professional JUDGE. Of course, that would mean you would have to change something about your perspective on her as a WOMAN. . . who can't change the fact that her skin is dark!