It was a rough day for liberals both on and off the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court sided in Mahmoud v. Taylor with Maryland parents who want to protect their children from LGBT propaganda in Montgomery County Public Schools. This ruling enraged non-straight activists, including the Human Rights Campaign, which called the decision “devastating.”
In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the Supreme Court upheld the Lone Star State’s age verification law protecting children from pornography. Activists called the ruling “wrongheaded” and “invasive.”
The Supreme Court indicated in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that the national injunctions weaponized against the Trump administration by district court judges “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” Democrats melted down over the ruling, calling it “deplorable” and “a vile betrayal of our Constitution.”
The court ruled 6-3 in each of these cases, and in all three, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was in the dissenting minority.
Not only did Jackson not get her way, her apparent ignorance and judicial freewheeling was exposed for all to see in CASA, where she noted in a dissenting opinion that the majority’s decision not only “diverges from first principles” but is “profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate.”
‘In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court’s opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment.’
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who delivered the opinion of the court in CASA, noted that Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent focused on “conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity.” Jackson, on the other hand,
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.
Barrett noted that her untethered colleague apparently believes both that “the fundamental role of courts is to ‘order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop,'” and that “if courts lack the power to ‘require the Executive to adhere to law universally’ … courts will leave a ‘gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound.'”
RELATED: MASSIVE VICTORY: SCOTUS sides with parents; Alito nukes LGBT indoctrination campaign
Sarah Silbiger-Pool/Getty Images
The former Notre Dame Law School professor tried to make sense out of Jackson’s position, though admitted that it was “difficult to pin down.”
Barrett suggested that Jackson either believes that universal injunctions are appropriate whenever a defendant is part of the executive branch — a position that “goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions” — or, “more extreme still,” that “the reasoning behind any court order demands ‘universal adherence,’ at least where the Executive is concerned.”
“In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court’s opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment,” wrote Barrett. “Once a single district court deems executive conduct unlawful, it has stated what the law requires. And the Executive must conform to that view, ceasing its enforcement of the law against anyone, anywhere.”
Barrett proceeded to insinuate that former President Joe Biden’s DEI appointee was ignorant of the relevant American legal history and precedent and may have skipped analysis of relevant readings because they involved “boring ‘legalese.'”
“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.
Although she would not dwell on Jackson’s understanding, Barrett nevertheless pointed out that the liberal justice “decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Read the full article here
