Why Ketanji Brown Jackson is hell-bent on destroying the Supreme Court
US News Metro Long Island Politics
Sports NFL MLB Olympics NBA NHL College Football College Basketball WNBA
Business Personal Finance
Entertainment TV Movies Music Celebrities Awards Theater
Lifestyle Weird But True Sex & Relationships Viral Trends Human Interest Parenting Fashion & Beauty Food & Drink Travel
Health Wellness Fitness Health Care Medicine Men’s Health Women’s Health Mental Health Nutrition
Science Space Environment Wildlife Archaeology
Today’s Paper Covers Columnists Horoscopes Crosswords & Games Sports Odds Podcasts Careers
Email Newsletters Official Store Home Delivery Tips
Switch between CA and NY editions here.
Why Ketanji Brown Jackson is hell-bent on destroying the Supreme Court
The call is coming from inside the house.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais has made progressives even more determined to delegitimize the court — and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is among them.
In a dissent involving a post-decision procedural question, Jackson accused the majority of acting out of pure partisanship.
Her opinion said that the court “unshackles itself” from all constraint and “dives into the fray” (meaning the partisan fray).
In its jurisprudence, “principles give way to power.”
It is acting with an “abandon” that is “unwarranted and unwise.”
The week in whoppers: Elizabeth Warren rips into Jeff Bezos, Reuters gaslights on Voting Rights Act and more
As furious redistricting battles continue, we reveal Republican plan to add 14 seats following last week’s Supreme Court ruling
Apple dealt blow by Supreme Court in long-running antitrust feud against ‘Fortnite’ maker
These harsh charges occasioned a stinging and well-deserved rebuttal from Justice Samuel Alito.
But, merits aside, the tenor and substance of the Jackson dissent captures the mindset of a left that is increasingly determined to destroy the Supreme Court in order to save it.
The technical matter under dispute was whether the court would wait 32 days to finalize its decision in Louisiana v.........
