The Right Leaning Alito 5 vs the 3 Liberal Judges IS spilling out in the public media…
The Supreme Court’s nine justices often like to tout their camaraderie, hoping to dispel public perceptions that they are locked into warring ideological camps.
But the final rulings of the current term — issued from the bench during a tense 90-minute court session Friday — revealed some acrimonious, even acidic, exchanges.
Most of the rhetorical clashes pitted the court’s conservative and liberal wings against each other in politically polarized cases. But not all of the spats fell squarely along ideological lines.
On the whole, they paint a picture of nine people who are deeply divided over the law and the role of the courts — and who also may just not like each other very much.
The most acerbic feud Friday came in the biggest ruling of the year: the justices’ 6-3 decision granting the Trump administration’s bid to rein in the power of individual district court judges to block federal government policies nationwide.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court’s entire conservative supermajority, responded sharply to a pair of dissents, one written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. But Barrett reserved her most pointed barbs for Jackson.
Barrett, a Trump appointee and the second-most-junior justice, accused Jackson, a Biden appointee and the court’s most junior member, of mounting “a startling line of attack” not “tethered … to any doctrine whatsoever.” According to Barrett, Jackson was promoting “a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,” and she was skipping over legal issues she considers “boring.”
“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. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
Well, maybe not “only” that. While insisting she wouldn’t “dwell” on Jackson’s arguments, Barrett wound up devoting nearly 900 words to them, capping the passage off with another zinger suggesting hypocrisy on Jackson’s part….
image….Britannia
I have no problem with this decision.
It’s effect is being way overblown.
I agree that the Supreme’s actually have given a ‘walk around’ for the way to attack Trumpo immigtaion actions…