• The Supreme Court puts liberal justices in their place

    From NoBody@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 27 17:29:51 2025
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
    XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

    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. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an
    imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.

    No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But
    the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this
    obligation�in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from
    doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)
    (concluding that James Madison had violated the law but holding that
    the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him
    to follow it). But see post, at 15 (Jackson, J., dissenting) (�If
    courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to
    law universally, . . . compliance with law sometimes becomes a matter
    of Executive prerogative�). Observing the limits on judicial authority�including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary
    Act of 1789�is required by a judge�s oath to follow the law.

    Justice Jackson skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing
    statute involves boring �legalese,� post, at 3, she 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?� Ibid. 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: �Everyone,
    from the President on down, is bound by law.�

    That goes for judges too.
    ------End of Excerpt------

    You know, Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg got along. They were
    friends, despite disagreeing. It's not unprecedented for disagreeing
    judges to still respect each other. Clearly, Justice Jackson is beyond
    that. She's just THAT unqualified.
    __________________
    Link to the formal opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/606/24a884/ See less

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)