Well, it finally happened. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, known for her calm, measured approach, decided she’d had enough of the nonsense and let Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson have it during today’s monumental Supreme Court smackdown of nationwide injunctions. And let me tell you, it was glorious.
For those keeping score, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Trump v. CASA, Inc., shutting down the ridiculous practice of activist district judges issuing so-called “universal injunctions” that block federal policies across the whole country. You know, those court orders leftist judges love to use whenever a Republican president tries to actually enforce the law or protect our borders. Friday’s decision restores a little sanity, reminding the judiciary that they don’t get to override the will of a duly elected president just because MSNBC tells them to.
The case specifically challenged President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” It’s an executive order designed to safeguard citizenship from being cheapened by activist bureaucrats and open-border radicals, something the Biden regime has been only too happy to erode. So naturally, leftist groups ran to the courts to block it. But this time, the Supreme Court said, “Not so fast.”
Justice Barrett, writing for the majority with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in her corner, delivered a legal masterclass dismantling the flimsy justification for nationwide injunctions. She pointed out these sweeping orders have no grounding in the Judiciary Act of 1789 or constitutional tradition. Translation? These left-wing judges have been making it up as they go, and it’s about time someone called them on it.
But here’s where things got especially spicy. Justice Jackson, Biden’s diversity hire, I mean Supreme Court appointee, dissented, naturally. But her arguments were so laughably weak, even Barrett couldn’t resist taking the gloves off. In her ruling, Barrett brushed aside Jackson’s reasoning, noting it “is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.” Brutal. But Barrett wasn’t finished.
She went on to roast Jackson’s shallow understanding of the law by saying, “Justice Jackson skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring legalese.”
Translation? Jackson doesn’t do the hard legal work. She’s all about buzzwords and activist slogans but struggles when it comes to actual Constitutional analysis. It’s the quiet part spoken out loud, and it confirms what conservatives have been saying for years: Jackson was chosen for identity politics, not legal brilliance.
If mild-mannered Barrett thinks this, imagine what Alito and Thomas are saying behind closed doors.
Leave a Comment