Jackson Accuses SCOTUS Of ‘Partiality’ She And Her Fellow Liberal Justices Are Guilty Of:
If Jackson and her liberal colleagues had any interest in the Supreme Court avoiding ‘the appearance of partiality,’ they’d cut their left-wing political theater.
One really has to admire the hutzpah of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Not only is she comfortable signing off on some of the most asinine opinions imaginable, but she’s also shameless in gaslighting her conservative colleagues on “partiality” — an issue she and her fellow liberal justices know quite a bit about.
The latest incident occurred Monday evening when the Supreme Court released an order pertaining to its recently released Louisiana v. Callais decision kneecapping race-based redistricting. As The Federalist reported, the order fast-tracked transmission of the ruling to the lower courts so they and Louisiana could correct the latter’s unconstitutional congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Clearly disturbed about the Pelican State fixing its racially gerrymandered map before the general election, Jackson penned a solo dissent lambasting her colleagues’ decision to authorize the ruling’s transmission in accordance with existing Supreme Court rules. She more specifically attacked the court for declining “to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures” as to “avoid the appearance of partiality.”
“But, today, the Court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation,” Jackson wrote. “The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power. Because this abandon is unwarranted and unwise, respectfully, I dissent.”
It’s hard not to see the irony in all of this. While Jackson feigns worry about the order’s effect on “the appearance of partiality,” it is her and her liberal colleagues who have made “partiality” and politics central to how they operate on the high court.
In Monday’s order, Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch) authored a concurring opinion addressing Jackson’s “trivial” and “insulting” dissent. The Bush appointee notably included a footnote in the opinion recognizing that the “constitutional question” of whether Louisiana’s congressional map is unlawful “was argued and conferenced nearly seven months ago.” Put another way, that the court seemingly answered the question not long after it held oral arguments in the case on Oct. 15, 2025.
The reason that detail is significant is because former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer reported more than a week before Callais‘ release that the liberal justices were slow-walking their dissent in the case as a way of impacting the 2026 midterms. The April 29 Callais decision was notably the final case from the court’s October sitting to be released.
“I have been told by reliable sources that that [Louisiana v. Callais] decision is done, and that the minority is slow-walking the dissent so that states … do not have time to redistrict ahead of” the election, Spicer said during a podcast interview. --->READ MORE HERE
Alito Torches Jackson’s ‘Trivial’ And ‘Insulting’ Hot Take On Supreme Court’s Latest Callais Order:
“The dissent accuses the Court of ‘unshackl[ing]’ itself from ‘constraints.’ … It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint,” wrote Justice Alito.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court opinions are often poorly argued and lack coherent legal reasoning. And in the high court’s latest release, Justice Samuel Alito made sure she knew it.
The Alito-driven smackdown happened late Monday when the Supreme Court released an order related to its landmark Louisiana v. Callais decision, in which the majority (led by Alito) determined that Louisiana’s most recent congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Equally significant, however, is that the ruling effectively nuked states’ ability to partake in race-based redistricting.
In its newest order, the high court agreed to fast-track the transmission of its decision to the lower courts rather than wait 32 days, as per normal custom. The move came in response to a request by the Louisiana residents who challenged the unlawful map to waive the 32-day period. They argued that doing so would allow the lower courts and state legislature to quickly rectify the unconstitutional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant the Callais appellees’ request in accordance with existing SCOTUS rules did not sit well with Jackson. The Biden appointee penned an unhinged solo screed claiming the court’s order “has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.”
Jackson started off by recognizing Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry’s recent suspension of the state’s U.S. House primaries in light of Callais‘ release to fix the illegal map, as well as the subsequent legal challenges to his decision. In doing so, she charged that “[t]hese post-Callais developments have a strong political undercurrent,” and attacked her colleagues for declining “to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures” as to “avoid the appearance of partiality.”
“But, today, the Court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation,” Jackson wrote. “The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power. Because this abandon is unwarranted and unwise, respectfully, I dissent.”
Clearly fed up with Jackson’s political activism from the bench, Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a concurring opinion addressing the junior justice’s charges he said “cannot go unanswered.” --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK
here, GETTR
here, and TWITTER
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment