Post

I think Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissents are an important exception to the "Supreme Court dissents don't matter" rule of thumb, because she is using them not to argue with the conservative justices, but to explain to the public that the conservative justices are liars and in the tank for Trump

ballsandstrikes.orgKetanji Brown Jackson Is Telling the Truth About the Supreme CourtThe task of interpreting the law is inherently “political.” But no justice has been this comfortable saying so in public.

2.3K reposts8.6K likes

The six (should be sick) Supreme Court judges are criminals beyond any reasonable doubt. Let's see how many of these scunbags croak before the convicted felon Trump. Bad karma will bite their ass so hard that they will be in pain for a long time.

Jay, I wanted to tell you that after this sentence, I stopped reading and immediately followed you: “…moving ever closer to realizing the conservative movement’s demented fever dream of making the government small enough to drown in a bathtub.” I shall now continue the article. That is all.

“At this point, if you are a liberal justice, the only thing you accomplish by continuing to moderate your language is conveying the impression that you don’t actually care about losing all that much.” Exaaactly why we plebeians are so frustrated with our (lack of) Democratic leadership!

“… justices relish the chance to explain in excruciating detail why their opponents are wrong, especially … in a majority opinion. Barrett’s choice not to even try a spike-the-football rejoinder should be understood as a tacit admission that she doesn’t really have one.” They know, they know…

“[K.B. Jackson] is urging people to be skeptical of the story the Court loves to tell about itself: that the task of interpreting the law is not “political.” This has always been wrong. But no justice has come quite so close to saying it.” 🧨, Jay. Look forward to more from you.

It's better than that: her job is to speak to other lawyers, not just the public. They all serve the law, which doesn't have kings either. So when the system is under strain, she is flagging the weak points, correctly so. In their world law will prevail over tainted interpreters.

I found this super-weird (NYT): "She’s breaking the fourth wall, speaking beyond the court,” said Melissa Murray, a law professor" The "fourth wall" is between the show and the audience, but the American people are not supposed to be watching SCOTUS perform. We're supposed to be participants!

Thomas used dissents for years to telegraph his radical agenda. When the time was right with an installed radical majority, movement litigants would instigate cases testing previously off limits topics, ie, Abortion, Chevron or Heller knowing they'd get a sympathetic vote if cases were revisited.

You're a tough crowd, Jay! I'm glad Whitney stuck around for the ride. Meanwhile, I'm curious: what's the most creative way to drown a government in a bathtub? 🤔

"If she cannot persuade her colleagues that the Constitution does not imbue Donald Trump with an inviolate right to ignore it, she can at least use her platform to show the public that the institution is captured, broken, and not to be taken seriously."

Scalia’s decades of minority jeremiads became the road map for Roberts’ goon squad in wrecking 75 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence. Unless Jackson is laying the groundwork for any future courts to toss all this hackery straight into the trash, it’s all just hot air

I love a good dissent. Typically, over the last 20+ years I’ve only read decisions related to education, and RBG was my favorite at a good stinging dissent, but KBJ is quickly taking the top spot.

The truth is that the method of nomination is flawed and must lead to ideological and political bias. It also makes the justices behoven to the president that appointed them and makes the administive arm and the judicial far too closely related . The law is supposed to be blind, it isn’t.

I take strong exception to your framing that the “conservative” movement wants or is trying to make government small enough to drown in a bathtub. They want a large and powerful government, dedicated to the persecution of the Other

Assuming we don't descend into a Trumpian fascist state, history will remember Justice Jackson as the conscience of America and its Founding Fathers while the rest will be remembered as the cowards that chose decorum over Democracy. Roberts will be remember in the same vein as Benedict Arnold.

I remember early on KBJ using “originalist” arguments in her dissents only for the justices to completely ignore them. I appreciate her calling out the BS. I wish a more judges and politicians would make this central to their public actions. It seems necessary to breaking out of our current cycle.

The comparison to Thomas's (frequent!) dissents and concurrences is exactly on point. The only reason to write separately is to explain why you believe the decision should go in a different direction. Thomas never believed he should do that amicably, and his views have won out resoundingly.

What does she have to lose? This poor woman got such a raw deal. She hasn't been able to be a Justice. She is the conscience of the court and the truth teller, and she was handed this filthy stinking corrupt bag of shit when she walked in the door. Thank God she is up for it and has stepped up.

On the contrary, this is exactly what being a Justice is and she is doing it better than many of her compatriots. She's serving the Law and remains clear on what it is. Alongside literal criminals… but then at every level there is some of that, hence the Law.

Incredibly important for the historic record. Future humans will want to know that not all of the Justices were morally bankrupt, corrupt and irresponsible judges who destroyed the US Constitution…

I had the same feeling about the DJT impeachments being important even though the cowardly Republicans were never going to convict, even after they had feared for their lives on Jan 6. The impeachments are important for historical documentation.