Ketanji Brown Jackson Rebukes Supreme Court’s ‘Harmful Interference’

[excalibur]

 

[Robert W]

How's that???

What exactly does she think the job of SOTUS is? To roll over whilel lower courts make idiotic decisions? Apparently she does think that.

She is unfit for any bench, let alone SCOTUS. What a pimple on the Court's behind she is.

​

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson rebuked the Supreme Court's "repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference" in a biting dissent as the conservative majority allowed President Donald Trump's administration to remove legal protections from more than 300,000 immigrants from Venezuela.​

​

...​

"I view today’s decision as yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. This Court should have stayed its hand. Having opted instead to join the fray, the Court plainly misjudges the irreparable harm and balance-of-the-equities factors by privileging the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power over countless families’ pleas for the stability our Government has promised them," Jackson wrote in her dissent. ​

​

"Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent," the justice wrote. Fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor also opposed the majority's decision.​

​

...​

Ketanji Brown Jackson rebukes Supreme Court's "harmful interference"

The justice's dissent came as the court allowed the Trump administration to end legal protections from over 300,000 Venezuelans.

www.newsweek.com

​

So what? Many decisions have justices that dissent. She is nobody special.

 

[Robert W]

We’d be a better nation if we got Alito , Gorsuch, and Thomas off the bench

Can't lawfully happen.

 

[Lesh]

Can't lawfully happen.

How is Jackson going to to be removed?

 

[Robert W]

How is Jackson going to to be removed?

Why ask me?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Get right on the constitutional amendment then! Good luck with that!

just my opinion...it must be nice to be appointed to a job for life even if you suck at it....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

just my opinion...it must be nice to be appointed to a job for life even if you suck at it....

You can thank your senile former president's cabal for that. It is obvious he had no idea who she was. I bet if you asked him now, he couldn't tell you her name.

 

[Lesh]

Why ask me?

You’re right. Amy interaction with you is ridiculous

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

How's that???

What exactly does she think the job of SOTUS is? To roll over whilel lower courts make idiotic decisions? Apparently she does think that.

She is unfit for any bench, let alone SCOTUS. What a pimple on the Court's behind she is.

​

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson rebuked the Supreme Court's "repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference" in a biting dissent as the conservative majority allowed President Donald Trump's administration to remove legal protections from more than 300,000 immigrants from Venezuela.​

​

...​

"I view today’s decision as yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. This Court should have stayed its hand. Having opted instead to join the fray, the Court plainly misjudges the irreparable harm and balance-of-the-equities factors by privileging the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power over countless families’ pleas for the stability our Government has promised them," Jackson wrote in her dissent. ​

​

"Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent," the justice wrote. Fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor also opposed the majority's decision.​

​

...​

Ketanji Brown Jackson rebukes Supreme Court's "harmful interference"

The justice's dissent came as the court allowed the Trump administration to end legal protections from over 300,000 Venezuelans.

www.newsweek.com

SCOTUS is not infallible, and Justice Jackson is "documenting" how they have repeated strayed from precedence ("for the records").

Ten Supreme Court Decisions Often Deemed Its Worst​

Case	Year	What the Court Held / Why It’s Criticized
Dred Scott v. Sandford	1857	Held that Black persons (free or enslaved) could not be U.S. citizens, and that Congress lacked power to prohibit slavery in territories. Widely viewed as the worst decision in Court history. FindLaw+2Wikipedia+2
Plessy v. Ferguson	1896	Upheld “separate but equal” doctrine, giving constitutional cover to racial segregation. FindLaw+2Time+2
Lochner v. New York	1905	Struck down a state law limiting bakery working hours, invoking a “liberty of contract” doctrine. Seen as judicial overreach ignoring labor protections. FindLaw+1
Buck v. Bell	1927	Upheld forced sterilization of the “unfit.” Famously declared “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” FindLaw+1
Korematsu v. U.S.	1944	Upheld Japanese-American internment during WWII as “military necessity.” Later widely condemned; formally repudiated in parts by subsequent courts. Wikipedia+1
Bowers v. Hardwick	1986	Upheld a Georgia law criminalizing private, consensual sodomy. Overruled later. Curiosity University
Stump v. Sparkman	1978	Held that a judge is immune from liability even if he orders something arguably grossly unjust (in this case, sterilizing a minor without her knowledge) so long as it's part of his “judicial function.” Wikipedia
Bush v. Gore	2000	The decision stopping Florida recounts in the 2000 election is often criticized as result-oriented and lacking consistent legal reasoning. Time
San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez	1973	Held that the Constitution does not guarantee a federal right to education, even though funding disparities in school systems often correlate with wealth and race. Some scholars call it one of the worst post-1960 decisions. Wikipedia
Citizens United v. FEC	2010	Expanded “speech” rights to corporate money in elections, leading to strings of criticism over influence, inequality, and democracy. HISTORY+2FindLaw+2

---

Caveats & Context​

• Overturned or discredited: Some of these decisions have been reversed (e.g. Bowers, Korematsu in later contexts).
• 
  
• Historical vs. modern impact: Some errors were more damaging in their time (e.g. Dred Scott) than how they are viewed now.
• 
  
• Legal philosophy differences: What’s “bad” to one scholar might be defensible (though regrettable) to another, especially under different judicial philosophies (originalism, living constitution, textualism, etc.).
• 
  
• Degrees of badness: Some of these are called “worst ever,” while others are “among worst in their era” or “worst post-1960” etc.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

There must be a way of getting her off that bench.

Why? Because she's a Black woman?

 

[excalibur]

Why? Because she's a Black woman?

She is incompetent, a hack too, but incompetent.

This most recent dissent of hers flies in the face of the statute which clearly says no judicial review, yet lower courts violated that by granting judicial review. And she thinks that should continue.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why? Because she's a Black woman?

Because she has no idea what she's doing. Surely the remaining justices can find a way.

 

[Robert W]

You’re right. Amy interaction with you is ridiculous

Say something intelligent and you get back intelligent remarks.

 

[Robert W]

Because she has no idea what she's doing. Surely the remaining justices can find a way.

Democrats have conditioned blacks to think of skin color first. When will they first think of brains?

 

[Robert W]

Why? Because she's a Black woman?

Silly question. What is wrong with being black?