Ketanji Brown Jackson Humiliated By Conservative Justice In Fiery Response To Dissent

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett went viral on Friday for a brutal dismantling of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over her “extreme” dissent in the birthright citizenship case. The Supreme Court ruled to restrict the use of universal injunctions by lower courts in its bombshell ruling.

“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,” Barrett writes in her response to Jackson’s dissent to the court’s decision. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Barrett wrote the majority opinion for the case, which is being referred to as the most consequential case considered this term. President Donald Trump was given a significant victory in this ruling, as it clearly places limits on the power of district judges to block actions he takes as the head of the Executive Branch.

Justice Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion that heavily focused on the practical ramifications of the decision, rather than taking the time to establish her argument on legal theory.

“It is not difficult to predict how this all ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,” Jackson wrote with more than a touch of dramatic flair.

“Quite unlike a rule-of-kings governing system, in a rule of law regime, nearly ‘[e]very act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law,’” Jackson stated elsewhere in the opinion. “At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”

Jackson waved away any questions or concerns about whether universal injunctions may be provided for in the Judiciary Act of 1790 as “legalese” that “obscures a far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?”

Barrett’s tone in her response to Jackson almost seemed to mock her argument, or lack thereof.

“Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese,’ [Jackson] seeks to answer ‘a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?’” she wrote.

She then added, “In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.'”

“That goes for judges, too,” she continued.

The justice wasn’t done there. She then slammed Jackson for taking “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.”

Truly irritated by the decision of her colleagues, Jackson opted to forego closing out her opinion with the usual “I dissent” or “respectfully, I dissent,” in a show of her anger and frustration.