‘This administration always wins’: Ketanji Jackson complains Supreme Court is letting White House be victorious

Ketanji Jackson, the newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by Joe Biden, is complaining that her colleagues are allowing the White House to win court cases.

Fox News reports she wrote in a dissent this week that the “recent tendencies” of the court to side with the Trump administration are wrong.

“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins,” she scolded.

Calvinball, in fact, comes out of the hilarious comic strip and book creations of Bill Watterson, where Calvin, the precocious little boy, plays games with his pet, stuffed, tiger, and there are no fixed rules.

Jackson’s claims, however, fall apart when considering the dozens and dozens of court rulings that have gone against the Trump administration at various court levels, based on the hundreds of legal cases leftists have brought against him as he pursues his Make America Great Again agenda.

Those include refusals to let him cut spending as he’s planned, judges who insist that he bring deported criminals back to the United States, and many more.

Even if Jackson, whose personal ideologies clearly are being offended by the Trump administration’s agenda for a strong America, following the law, providing protections for Americans and calling for fair trade agreements, was referencing only the Supreme Court, those justices have been far from letting the Trump administration do all it wants.

Jackson, however, rebuked other justices for “lawmaking” on the court’s “shadow docket,” which involves cases that are brought to the justices on an emergency basis and require a ruling right away – before a full development in lowers courts, a full briefing and arguments.

The justice with a far left ideology and agenda on the court said the majority on the court bent “over backwards to accommodate” Trump by allowing the National Institutes of Health to cancel more than $700 million in grants that did not align with its priorities.

Some of those grants were ideological, pushing the leftist agenda of diversity, equity and inclusion, and gender identity, topics on which the government should be remaining neutral, not spending tax money pushing.

That ruling, she complained, is the “newest entry in the court’s quest to make way for the Executive Branch…”

That 5-4 decision allows the NIH to cancel a series of grants that already had been identified.

In a second 5-4 decision that keeps a lower court’s block on the NIH’s directives about the grants intact, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, sided with John Roberts and the three liberals. The latter portion of the ruling could hinder the NIH’s ability to cancel future grants, the report said.

Experts have noted a surge in the “rhetoric” from the leftist Jackson, who has established herself as one of the most active talkers during oral arguments.

“The histrionic and hyperbolic rhetoric has increased in Jackson’s opinions, which at times portray her colleagues as abandoning not just the Constitution but democracy itself,” said constitutional expert Jonathan Turley.

Jackson, in fact, got scolded for her rhetoric in an opinion by Barrett recently.

Barrett accused Jackson of advocating for an “imperial judiciary.”