Justice Jackson Dissents—From Reality

In the woke, radical left fantasy world that Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson lives in, reducing the federal bureaucracy is the ultimate Constitutional crisis.

It started back in February when President Trump issued Executive Order 14210, directing federal agencies to lay off government workers and shrink the size of government.

Naturally, the lawsuits flooded in almost immediately. Honestly it’s crazy to think that the President of the United States can’t even lay off his own employees without getting hit by multiple lawsuits.

The American Federation of Government Employees—a union that exists to protect even the most destructive and useless government jobs—filed one such lawsuit. And surprise! A district court in Northern California (where else?) happily obliged, issuing a nationwide injunction to freeze the executive order while the legal battle played out.

The case rocketed up to the Supreme Court, and on July 8, the Court did the unthinkable: it applied the law rationally.

The Justices reversed the injunction, which will allow the Executive Order to proceed while the case works its way through the lower courts (which could take years).

It’s important to note that the Supreme Court didn’t make a final ruling on the legality of the President’s executive order— they left that to the lower courts.

However they did say explicitly that the President “is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful”. And therefore the Court overturned the injunction so that the federal layoffs could proceed unhindered.

Even more importantly, the Court’s decision didn’t cut on ideological lines. EIGHT of the nine justices voted to lift the injunction and allow the President’s order to proceed.

Only one voted against it— Ketanji Brown Jackson.

While the other eight justices took only a page and a half to explain their position, Justice Jackson saw fit to write a FIFTEEN PAGE manifesto that puts even AOC’s ignorance to shame.

Jackson accused her colleagues of being “hubristic,” and “senseless.” She said that, “for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball.”

Yes, a “wrecking ball” that may reduce the federal government by 5%.

Then it actually started to become comical.

Everyone knows the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the land. But, according to Jackson, it should defer to lower courts, which she believes are somehow closer to the common people.

According to Jackson, the lower district court “carefully reviewed the evidence” and produced a “detailed 55-page opinion.” Oh, well Geez. I guess 55 pages automatically means that the lower court is beyond reproach.

The Supreme Court, in contrast, is on a “lofty perch far from the facts or the evidence.”

“Lower court judges have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening on the ground and are indisputably best positioned to determine the relevant facts…”

Of course! Whenever you think of which government officials are most in touch with the common man, surely a woke federal judge in northern California is first thing that comes to mind.

By Jackson’s argument, why even bother having a Supreme Court if the lower courts are so much more equipped to decide local issues— like firing some overpaid bureaucrats.

In fact, maybe cases should start at the Supreme Court, and work their way down to the district courts to be applied differently in each jurisdiction, according to whatever the local judges feel the ‘people on the ground’ need.

Jackson then waxed philosophical about the precious federal programs at risk, noting that:

“What one person might call bureaucratic bloat is a farmer’s prospect for a healthy crop, a coal miner’s chance to breathe free from black lung, or a preschooler’s opportunity to learn in a safe environment.”

You’d think Trump ordered agencies to start burning libraries and salting the fields. In reality, he’s cutting jobs in agencies where half the staff couldn’t even tell you what their department does—because nobody’s asked them in 30 years.

This is exactly how the federal budget has grown so enormous. As soon as anyone in Congress thinks up a program, people act as if cutting it would collapse civilization.

Anything the government decides to pay for today must forever and ever into eternity remain government programs, regardless of how many tens of trillions of dollars worth of debt accumulate paying for them.

And yet, according to Jackson, allowing the layoffs to proceed is an “aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of another” that leaves “the People paying the price.”

She even went as far as accusing her two liberal colleagues, leftist Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, of “greenlighting” President Trump’s agenda.

Sotomayor couldn’t take that lying down and had to correct Jackson, clarifying that “the [layoff] plans themselves are not [the matter] before this Court, at this stage”. In other words, the Court’s ruling was solely about lifting the injunction, not the righteousness of the layoffs themselves.

Not to mention the fact that it is not up to Supreme Court justices to opine on the cost or benefit of any Presidential or Congressional ruling.

They have one job: to determine whether or not it is legal and Constitutional.

Yet Justice Jackson doesn’t even understand this basic principle of her job; and her unhinged rant reads like she was absent the day they taught law in law school.

Source