Over the last few days, the Supreme Court has been handing Donald Trump win after win, at least for now.
While many of the opinions are falling along ideological lines, one ruling was 8-1, with Supreme Court Justice Jackson being the lone dissenting opinion.
Her rulings have been so radical, even Justice Amy Coney Barrett called her out in her majority opinion.
When Biden appointed Jackson, there were many concerns that he was appointing an activist, not a jurist, to the Supreme Court.
Thus far, many of her rulings have proven those concerns right, as did her recent interview on ABC News.
Jackson stated that the conservative majority on the court is an “existential threat to the rule of law.”
She then added, “Sometimes we have cases that have those kinds of implications, and, you know, are there cases in which there are issues that have that kind of significance? Absolutely.”
During the birthright citizenship case, the subject at hand was not the actual order, but the power of lower courts to slap the handcuffs on the administration with a nationwide injunction.
After all, if a lower court has that kind of power, does that not make the court more powerful than the president?
Barrett blistered Jackson for yet another Chicken Little dissent, writing, "She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate—even required—whenever the defendant is part of the Executive Branch. If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions."
She continued, "We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
When the liberal justices are siding with the conservative justices, you know it is more or less an open and shut case because they look for every way possible to block Trump.
However, in the recent ruling to downsize the government, it was Jackson who stood alone, with far-left Justice Sotomayor calling her out after siding with the majority that Trump did have the right to do so, writing, "I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates.
"Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’ … and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much."
I think it has been proven repeatedly that Jackson is an activist, not a judge. She is in way over her head here. We expect a difference of opinion on interpreting the law, but Jackson’s opinion was just flat-out wrong, clearly looking to hinder the Trump administration because she wanted to, not because that is what the law said. Sadly, we probably have two decades of this nonsense to look forward to.
