It appears there may be some debate still open on this...
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett stunned veteran bench watchers Friday with a blunt takedown of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s “extreme” dissent in the landmark birthright citizenship case in which the Supreme Court curtailed lower court use of universal injunctions.
“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,” wrote Barrett, the court’s second-newest justice, in a jaw-dropping rebuke of her colleague, the newest justice.
“We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
“With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution,” Sotomayor wrote. “Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.”
In a separate, solo dissent, Jackson went a step further. She called the court’s 6-3 decision along ideological lines an “existential threat to the rule of law.”
“It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called ‘universal injunctions’ is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior,” Jackson wrote in her dissent. “When the Government says ‘do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,’ what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution— please allow this. That is some solicitation.”
Jackson suggested the Constitution was designed to “split the powers of a monarch” between three governing branches to protect the American people from overreach. She said those core values are “strangely absent” from the majority ruling.
@GerOttman I don't have a solution here sadly. Until some arm of the government decides to quit testing the waters and go all in, this limbo of where exactly we are headed will continue. We know the Executive and the Legislative branches aren't going to do anything, whuch leaves it to the Judicial.
She is a devout communist. The Supreme Court has rulled against Trump a few times. So we still have checks and ballances. The activist judges are all engaging in lawfair and BS, and they know it.
@Confined Anyone who supports the actual people and not the government are for some reason called a communist. It's like people who use the word woke. They litetally have no idea what that word actually means or that actual true communism has never been tried because of people wanting power for themselves.
Calling someone a communist is about the same as believing in the Boogie Man.
@FoxyQueen Remember the questions she was asked during her confirmation hearing? She does not know what a women is. She seemed to know very little about the constitution, and she made it clear she did not like Trump and would never ever rule in his favor. She was given the job because she is black, not for her legal knowledge. Judges leave their politics at the door. She does not.
