Justice Amy Coney Barrett Lays The Legal Smackdown On Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Virginia Kruta.

    When the Justices on the Supreme Court are at odds over major and often contentious issues, the verbal jabs and sometimes even insults that typically play out behind closed doors can make their way into written opinions - and in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc., Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not disappoint.

    Barrett penned the majority opinion in the case that revolves around the idea of birthright citizenship and whether it should apply to the children of illegal aliens - but also tackles the issue of the universal injunctions, being handed down on a regular basis by cherry-picked judges in liberal courts in an attempt to prevent President Donald Trump from implementing his policies.

    Trump cheered the win in a post to his Truth Social platform, saying, "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ."


    But in addition to laying out the Court's opinion, Barrett took the opportunity to deliver a few precision strikes on the body's newest justice, appointed by former President Joe Biden, Ketanji Brown Jackson. Barrett's remarks aimed at Jackson - who is perhaps best known for her inability to answer, on direct questioning, "what is a woman?" - paint a clear picture of a justice more interested in activism than a Constitutional reading and application of the law.

    Barrett began by addressing the principal dissent - which was joined by Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan, but written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor - and then panned Jackson's by comparison.

    "The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity," Barrett wrote. "JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a 'mind-numbingly technical query ... she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of the courts is to 'order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law - full stop.'"

    Still referencing Jackson's dissent in the case, Barrett wrote, "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. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."


    "Observing the limits on judicial authority - including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789 - is required by a judge's oath to follow the law," Barrett continued, adding, "JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring 'legalese,' post, at 3, she seeks to answer 'a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: '[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.' Ibid. That goes for judges too."

poll#201

Considering what real news is available for all to witness, and in great specificity, should one pursue what is true outside of the channeled realm of the corrupt corporate /legacy media, and: Is Institutionalized Corruption real, and is it a hindrance to sustaining our Constitutional Republic now, and for future generations of American citizens?

  Yes

  No

  Not sure

475 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

poll#218

Now that President Trump is picking his cabinet and immediate staff to insulate him from the poor judgement of the Bureaucratic Class, while moving quickly to transition this Constitutional Republic unto a wise and sustainable direction: What is your immediate impression as to how our nation will prosper?

  We are headed toward a Golden Age in America's self-governed society.

  This will all wind up in a clustered mess since Trump is a Fascist, and thought to be the second coming of Adolf Hitler by our best journalists.

  This is a time where critical days lay ahead, where only wise and responsible decisions must be made to sustain US.

  I generally do not pay attention, but expect only the best to occur ... and that is what I always expect.

101 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?