GerOttman · 70-79, M
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.”
-New York Post
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.”
-New York Post
View 4 more replies »
DavidT8899 · 22-25, M
@FoxyQueen Only the Judicial branch -in particular ,the District and lower courts - are not supposed to have absolute power any more than the others.In the few instances where a conservative district judge put a nationwide block on a progressive order,the very same people who are crying about Executive power were crying about how unfair it was that one local judge can control the entire county.Read Amy Barrets response to the dissent and think about it.
FoxyQueen · 51-55, F
@DavidT8899 The thing is, these cases being brought to the lower courts have only one purpose. To be appealed to the higher court. They already know how the lower court will rule, and they are anticipating it so they can go up to the Supreme Court for a final ruling.
These cases being tried in lower coirts are specifically being presented to weaponize the court and make it lean the direction the people presenting these cases want it to go.
That is not justice. That is literally cramming in cases to make sure perceptions of the laws are changed to become weapons against things that are part of our freedoms.
I just can't be okay with this. The Legislative Branch is the one who should be dealing with these things and the Court being used as a checks an balance. Not as a boot on our necks like it is now.
These cases being tried in lower coirts are specifically being presented to weaponize the court and make it lean the direction the people presenting these cases want it to go.
That is not justice. That is literally cramming in cases to make sure perceptions of the laws are changed to become weapons against things that are part of our freedoms.
I just can't be okay with this. The Legislative Branch is the one who should be dealing with these things and the Court being used as a checks an balance. Not as a boot on our necks like it is now.
Confined · 56-60, M
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.
FoxyQueen · 51-55, F
@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.
Calling someone a communist is about the same as believing in the Boogie Man.
Confined · 56-60, M
@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.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
It already seems to be uncontainable! We are already the frog in the pot of hot water being heated up.
Elessar · 31-35, M
I guess that ship had already sailed with that infamous immunity ruling (2024)
Tminus6453 · M
Well thats kind of the plan with who's in charge of running the US now....
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment