“[T]he majority misses the Government’s actual objective: to secure our imprimatur for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections.”
—-Justice Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, again putting into black-and-white her intolerable political bias and lack of judicial decorum in her dissent to the 6-3 majority SCOTUS decision, a 10-page, unsigned opinion staying an injunction by a federal judge against the implementation of President Trump’s executive order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting.
I won’t pretend to know enough about the substantive law underlying the majority decision, and after trying to read Justice Jackson’s seemingly endless dissent, my brain hurts. However, I can say with ethical certainty that a judge who is automatically inclined to ascribe sinister motives to an elected President’s actions should be disqualified from weighing in on any controversy regarding those actions.
I read Trump’s EO regarding mail-in ballots as consistent with his oath of office and the definition of his powers under the Constitution. Mail-in ballots threaten the integrity of Federal elections and therefore the Constitution itself. There are limits to state sovereignty in determining election regulations and procedures, something Justice Jackson refuses to acknowledge. Gee, I wonder why only 23 states have challenged the EO. Which states might they be?
Elsewhere in her “War and Peace”-length dissent, Jackson complains that the claim that mail-in ballots risk election integrity hasn’t been proven. In fact, some courts have taken judicial notice of the fact, and it is a fact and an obvious fact, that mail-in ballots are unacceptably vulnerable to fraud. But I digress. The ethics issue now is that a Supreme Court Justice begins her analysis of an Executive Branch controversy with the biased presumption that the President of the United States is not pursuing what he believes is in the best interests of the nation under the Constitution. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has again demonstrated that she is a dangerous blight on the Court, the Separation of Powers, and the functioning of U.S. constitutional government.
____________________
Pointer: SCOTUS blog
Ethics Alarms 
It seems fair to say Justice Jackson represents the Ardayification of the SCOTUS.
Imagine, if you can stand it, what a packed court would look like under another lefty administration.
Clearly, she’s Trump Deranged and preaching to the Trump Deranged choir. She’s the functional equivalent of Al Sharpton or Benjamin Crump.
Jack wrote, “I can say with ethical certainty that a judge who is automatically inclined to ascribe sinister motives to an elected President’s actions should be disqualified from weighing in on any controversy regarding those actions.”
I agree 100%!
What’s become clear to me is, Justice Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t have the slightest clue when her bigoted emotional bias has corrupted her ability to render fair judgement based on critical thinking, logic and the law. It must truly be a daunting task for Justice Jackson to keep the plethora of rationalizations and hate floating around in her head from slipping past her lips when she’s trying to formulate her word salad of legal jargon opposition to all things Conservative.
Based on my observation of progressives patterns, I think it’s reasonably fair to say that one of these days Jackson is likely going to be triggered to publicly lose any semblance of judicial self control and publicly expose her extreme progressive bona fides. If a bigoted & arrogant progressive is properly triggered, they simply cannot hide that they’ve been fully indoctrinated to believe right down to their core that…
There was an old saying that if you want an alcoholic to hit rock bottom and fully expose their need for change, then you should “drive them to drink”. As truly unethical and physically dangerous as that could turn out to be with an alcoholic, there’s something to learn from that phrase that can be applied to what we perceive as closet progressives. You have to drive (trigger) them to loose their shit and fully expose their bigoted & arrogant progressive bona fides, in my opinion Justice Jackson is no different.
Time for the professional trolls in Washington DC to bait their proverbial hooks with some tasty triggering bait and go fishing at the Supreme Court, they might catch a big one…
Must confess to never have learned this particular objective of government in civics class.
Something is seriously wrong if a judge can’t separate their political party’s objectives with government objectives. She’s so incredibly confused that she wonders why the majority of the court doesn’t also think this way.
Maybe there’s hope–if she’s skilled enough to find and use a thesaurus, then maybe she’ll learn about the purposes and functions of a court.
We just had a run-off election for a gubernatorial candidate. The first votes counted were the mail-in votes. They were EXTREMELY different in distribution than the in-person ballots. Although this was a Republican primary, one of the candidates is essentially a Democrat who realized that he can’t get elected as a Democrat. The ‘Democrat’ started the night with 20,000 ballots that were 75-80% for him. His opponent played catch-up all night and won the election. In the most liberal county in the state, the more conservative candidate only lost with a 48.5-51.5% split in the votes, so the mail in votes are VERY unusual.
The results with the mail-in ballots: 186,000 to 184,000
The results without the mail-in ballots: 171,000 to 179,000
This is a consistent, unidirectional pattern, so it is not random chance. The more liberal candidate receives an unusually large share of the mail-in ballots. Until a study can point to a definitive reason why the more liberal candidate receives a markedly larger share of mail-in ballots, the validity of those ballots is in question. This is especially true because the people most likely to need mail in ballots are the elderly, who vote more conservative here.
There have been several incidents of suspicious mail-in ballot handling and counting. Those who discount such stories as being singular, too few to make a difference should be reminded that in our lifetime a presidential election was decided with a 537-vote margin.
Congress should get off its butt and pass the Save Act. Tighten up registration, purge the rolls, reduce mail-in balloting. Clean it all up.
BTW – passing the Bar used to be a major accomplishment. With morons like Jackson and Harris in your midst, what has happened to the legal profession?