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

Jackson understands what Sotomayor and Kagan haven't fully grasped yet: that when the Court is controlled by a six-justice conservative supermajority, "moderating your language" just conveys the impression that you don't actually care all that much about losing ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/ketan...

As @aywarhiannon.bsky.social would say, go off king.

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.