SCOTUS’s unsigned, one-paragraph order explained that, to give the losing party time to ask the Justices to reconsider their decision, the Supreme Court’s clerk normally waits 32 days after a decision is issued before sending a copy of the opinion and the judgment to the lower court. In this case, however, the black voters favoring the racially biased map in dispute “have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.”
The decision in Louisiana v. Callais came out on April 29, almost a week ago. The decision invalidated the districts adopted by the Louisiana Legislature in 2024 in a map that created two majority-black districts following two lower courts that ruled an earlier map with a single majority-black districtviolated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The “non-African-American” voters who had challenged the 2024 map asked the Supreme Court to bypass its normal 32-day waiting period and finalize the opinion as soon as possible; then the state’s congressional primaries can “occur under a remedial map,” as in a constitutional one.
Louisiana then informed the Court that it would indeed postpone the state’s Congressional primaries scheduled for May 16. Using the invalid 2024 map would mean electing members to Congress under an unconstitutional map, and, as one Republican official correctly said, would subject Louisiana voters “to representatives elected in districts deemed invalid by a United States Supreme Court 6-3 decision.”
Alito’s slapdown of his incompetent colleague is just five paragraphs. The Justice wrote,
“The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go un- answered. The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional. The dissent does not claim that it is now too late for the state legislature or the District Court to adopt a new map that complies with the Constitution. Nor does the dissent assert that it is not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map. Instead, the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action. One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting.
“The first is compliance with the 32-day default rule set out in this Court’s Rule 45.3, but as the Court’s order ex- plains, there is good reason to depart from the default rule here. The principal reason for the 32-day default rule is to give a losing party time to prepare a petition for rehearing. But here, the Robinson appellees have not expressed an in- tent to file such a petition, much less set out any ground on which a petition might be based. And the need for prompt action by this Court is clear. The date scheduled for the beginning of early voting in the primary election has al- ready passed. The congressional districting map enacted by the legislature has been held to be unconstitutional, and the general election will be held in just six months.
“The second reason offered by the dissent is that we should allow the 32-day period to run out in order to “avoid the appearance of partiality.” Post, at 3 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). But the dissent does not explain why its insistence on unthinking compliance with Rule 45.3’s default rule does not create the appearance of partiality (by running out theclock) on behalf of those who may find it politically advan tageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map.
“The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power. See post, at 4 (“And just like that, those principles give way to power”). That is a ground less and utterly irresponsible charge. What principle has the Court violated? The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan? The dissent accuses the Court of “unshackl[ing]” itself from “constraints.” Post, at 4. It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint.”
In other words, Jackson is a partisan, unprofessional, intellectually dishonest hack, not that this should be news to anyone. Every decision by the Supreme Court on issues with political implications is and always will be attacked by the losing party as having the “appearance of partiality.” Thanks to Barack Obama, who made just such an accusation in a State of the Union message, such accusations are now routine, undermining the authority and credibility of our crucial third branch of government.
It is tragic that Democrats inflicted an incompetent judge on the nation for life, but this is just one more in the long, long line of wretched decisions that marks Joe Biden as the Worst President Ever. The next metaphorical shoe to drop will be the claim that Alito’s criticism is racist, just as the decision itself has been called racist for its adherence to reality rather than Leftist cant. The South of 2026 is not the South of “Mississippi Burning,” and a 1965 law that presumes anti-black racism cannot no longer meet Constitutional standards.
Jackson’s dissent by itself is res ipsa loquitur to anyone who has the ability to understand the case: it proves how lacking in integrity and objective legal reasoning skills she is. Alito did the right thing. It is unfortunate that he had to, but it had to be done.
______________
Source: SCOTUS Blog
Ethics Alarms 
These DEI hires cause massive problems with racism in this country and our current leadership issues. It is stated that people like Jackson and Kamala Harris were not selected because of race and sex, but because they were the best people for the job. The same people also state that they were selected because of their race and sex. You would have to assume, however, that they would have been selected because they were the best person with the right race and sex available. If so, what does it say about black women if Ketanji Brown Jackson is the most capable black female judge in America? What does it say about black women if Kamala Harris is the most capable black female politician in America? Do I believe that is true? No, I HAVE to believe it is not true or I have to lose all hope in this country. However, the ‘good’, ‘nonracist’ Democrats are claiming it is true. How will people react to this? What if they actually believe the Democrats who are claiming that Ketanji Brown Jackson is the best black female judge in America? She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law? Do they just decide that all black Americans are just as ‘talented’ or worse than Jackson? Do they think that all these black professionals have been passed through because of their race and are incompetent, incapable of even modest ability compared to other races? Can you really condemn them if they think this? What does that do for long term race relations?
It’s time to officially censure U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
I wonder what the procedure is for censuring a justice; I suspect that only Congress has the power to censure Supreme Court justices, as Congress also has the power to impeach federal judges. I do not think that censuring a Supreme Court Justice has ever happened.
I also wonder whether stupid dissents by a justice constitute ethics violations severe enough to give grounds for an official censure. Bias may be a ground, and KBJ has bias.
My take: we are simply stuck with Ketanji Brown Jackson without remedy.
The Supreme Court as an institution has been irreparably damaged by the partisanship regarding the appointment of federal judges since Roe v Wade especially after the Bork hearings. Given recent comments from James Carville about packing SCOTUS I am afraid there is more damaging of SCOTUS to come.
According to AI:
These are results for us supreme court justice censures through history
Search instead for us supreme court justice censures therough histroy
AI Overview
Formal censure of U.S. Supreme Court Justices is exceptionally rare in American history because the primary method for holding them accountable is congressional impeachment, not legislative censure. While many justices have faced intense criticism, scandals, or ethics questions, no Supreme Court justice has ever been formally censured by Congress.
Federal Judicial Center | (.gov) +1
Historical Incidents and Formal Discipline Attempts
Mixed feelings on actually trying to censure or impeach KBJ, yet another gift of the Democrats
I do not think censure of KBJ is feasible following the Samuel Chase (1804 – 1805) precedent. Censure of Alito and Thomas will fail for the same reason.
You can’t censure or impeach a Justice for being stupid.
And just when I was writing the previous comment I noticed the following tweet from Rep. Olszewski (D-MD). My recommendation to Rep. Olszewski would be to propose term limits for Congress instead; after this passes we may talk about term limiting judges.
I asked Google AI Overview for arguments against term limits for SCOTUS, and the response was “Arguments against Supreme Court term limits focus on maintaining judicial independence, ensuring legal stability, and avoiding increased politicization. Key concerns include undermining the separation of powers, encouraging justices to “audition” for future employment, and the immense difficulty of amending the Constitution to enact such changes“.
It’s time for President to announce that he wants to increase SCOTUS from 9 to 13 Justices.
I bet enough Democrat heads would explode to cause the Potomac to run red for a week.
As a troll, or for serious? You will understand that this will the Democrats cover if they try to increase the size of the Supreme Court for political reasons.
For trolling. I don’t think the Court needs expanded, but I think it’s a perfect place to again display the hypocrisy of the Left…and watch them squeal as they’re hoisted with their own petard.
And frankly, if Democrats were to expand the Court to 11, a subsequent Republican could propose expanding it to 15, or 21, or 57, or 513. Where does it stop?