Justice Jackson is a woke plant by the Democrats because she is doing exactly what they want: going woke, and our Constitution doesn’t matter. The biggest problem is she keeps dissenting with completely left-wing, woke messages. This time, even the two other liberal Justices didn’t agree with her.
What a joke we have for a Supreme Court Justice, and it is not only the Democrats’ fault. The Republicans caved because it was a liberal for a liberal; therefore, they have a big hand in this Judge being selected. The GOP knew when she said she could not define a woman that she was too left for the court, but they voted for her anyway.
Three Republicans voted yes, and it isn’t surprising who: Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Mitt Romney (Utah). Big mistake, but not unexpected.
“Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s condemnation of the Supreme Court’s decision to lift a block on the Trump administration’s mail-in-voting executive order, signed in March, as a “Kafkaesque nightmare” is all the more stark because not a single other justice joined her.
The high court earlier this week lifted two lower-court injunctions that blocked Mr. Trump’s push for a more robust role for the United States Postal Service’s mail-in voting. The decision came along a six-to-three ideological split, with the conservatives carrying the day. The majority insisted that because the Postal Service had not yet issued its final rule, the injunctions were premature.
Justice Jackson refused to join her liberal colleagues, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, in their joint dissent, though she agreed with them that the injunctions ought to have remained in place. Instead, she wrote her own separate dissent, shot through with combative rhetoric. She accused her conservative colleagues of a “lack of situational awareness” and thundered that “it is both a serious legal error and a grave misuse of our equitable emergency powers to let the Executive proceed even one step further.”
Justice Jackson, who was nominated by President Biden to the high bench in 2022, declared that the lifting of the injunctions on Mr. Trump’s executive order “lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating.” The reference is to the Czech-Jewish 20th-century literary master who, writing in German, crafted a series of enigmatic, surreal, and nightmarish works of fiction that have become symbolic of the Byzantine and incomprehensible, tinged with horror.
This is hardly the first time that Justice Jackson has chosen a path as a soloist rather than joining the court’s small liberal chorus. In Trump v. Casa, decided last year, the court’s conservatives sharply limited the ability of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Justice Jackson wrote separately from Justices Kagan and Sotomayor to denounce the ruling as an assault on democracy and an “existential threat to the rule of law.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett was so incensed by that rhetoric that she wrote in turn that “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.”