Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said, “We also choose these sources astonishing lines of attack that are frankly not connected to any doctrine.”
So did Judge Amy Connie Barrett. response Jackson’s opposite Trump vs. Casa, Inc. The lawsuit concerns whether the Supreme Court should maintain a national district injunction against President Donald Trump. Presidential Order End of birthright citizenship issued on January 20, 2025. The court was divided in line with normal policy: six conservative justice, Casa, Inc. (Related: Scotus Justice takes a bold position on the Constitution)
🚨breaking The Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in demand that it be partially enforced the birthright citizenship order.
Decided 6-3. pic.twitter.com/coyqhfaywr
– Daily Caller (@dailycaller) June 27, 2025
Not only did Jackson dispute, he did so with “deep disillusionment,” following the numerous opinions that “a universal injunction would likely exceed the fair powers Congress has given federal courts.” Judge Amy Connie Barrett gave the court opinion.
It’s for age.
“By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached “nearly every major presidential act.” [was] “Barrett was quickly frozen by the U.S. District Court.”
The Trump administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court had no bearing on the issue of the legality of the executive order. Instead, they are concerned about the powers of the federal district courts to issue university injunctions. In this case, it prohibits anyone from applying for an executive order, not just plaintiffs in the local case.
Barrett does bristle correctly with a clear overstep of justice. “The bottom line? A universal injunction was not prominently present in most of our country’s history,” she points out.
Trump wins big victory in a birthright citizenship case as the Supreme Court restrains national injunction https://t.co/c7fyvcgqwl pic.twitter.com/bqq1hvpdup
– New York Post (@nypost) June 27, 2025
After establishing a positive argument for the majority decision, Barrett is working on Jackson’s dissent.
“We won’t stay [Jackson’s] Not to mention the constitution itself, Barrett screams about arguments that are at odds with precedents of over two centuries. “We only observe: [Jackson] Reduce the number of imperial executives while embracing imperial judiciary. ”
Judge amy Amy Coney Barrett did not engrave the words in this line from her majority opinion. https://t.co/8fap70ggyi pic.twitter.com/vjtebmj7tv
– Daily Caller (@dailycaller) June 27, 2025
Certainly, Jackson “provides a vision of the role of judicial role that even the most enthusiastic defenders of the blushing of judicial hegemony,” according to Barrett’s observation. “She said the basic role of the court is to order everyone (including the executor) to follow the law.
“It appears that Jackson believes that the reason behind the court’s order requires “universal adherence” at least when executives are involved,” Barrett says. “In her vision of declaring her laws on judicial function, the district court’s opinion is not only persuasive, but also has a legal force of judgment.” (Related: The Vicious Scotus Battle Proves that one judge is in the way above her head)
The huge rulling by the Supreme Court has slammed the ridiculous process of a nationwide injunction. Under our system, everyone must follow the law, including judges! pic.twitter.com/s3os7rpv6f
– jd vance (@jdvance) June 27, 2025
Barrett says that actually scrutinizing the law seems like a too-funny task for Jackson. Jackson “skip” critical analysis. “Analyzing governance law involves boring “legal.”[ing] A technical query for mindhandling. ”
Saturday morning cartoons can be dauntingly technical to Jackson’s intelligence.
Barrett concludes genelessly with advice for justice in her fellow justice. “Learning her own advice would work,” Jackson said.[E]Beyone is bound by the law by the President of Down. That applies to judges as well. ” Barrett is approaching a line that explicitly dismisses Jackson as unconditional, dim.
Jackson’s objection argues that the majority’s views focus on “unchanging comparisons” and that they accused colleagues of “early myopia framing.” She accuses a majority of people of “confusion” over constitutional law, makes “basic mistakes” and submits a “seriously dangerous” sentence. Her objections, as always, are many of the more emotionally indifferent screeds than constitutional analysis.
“For the majority, a power-hungry actor… (waits for that)… District Court,” Jackson wrote. The keen legal mind features certainly include stage directions in legal objections.
The most painful aspect of Jackson’s tenure is her forgetfulness of her own lack of competence. The public knows she isn’t very bright. Likewise, do justice to her peers. Jackson is sharp enough to blind his own shortcomings, but not sharp enough to overcome them.
Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @natalierene03
