STFU you racist pinhead. You actually don't know what the vote was. All you know is that EK and ACB didn't join KBJ's dissent. That means nothing in this context, except maybe they don't have as much energy.
As I said, 8 to 1.
None of that has anything to do with the fact that she's incorporating her feelings about Trump into her decision, when she should be talking about constitutional interpretations, past decisions, etc to ultimately determine if Trump's executive order was lawful. Her opinion of his actions are irrelevant... Or they should be irrelevant, just as the amount of melanin in her skin is irrelevant.
Serious question -- did you actually read Jackson's dissent? Because she starts with the constitutional implications of Trump's actions and the majority's decision in her very first paragraph --
As I said, 8 to 1.
None of that has anything to do with the fact that she's incorporating her feelings about Trump into her decision, when she should be talking about constitutional interpretations, past decisions, etc to ultimately determine if Trump's executive order was lawful. Her opinion of his actions are irrelevant... Or they should be irrelevant, just as the amount of melanin in her skin is irrelevant.
Yes, I read it. I was also "confused" with other things she wrote, including what you posted.
Ok. Just so you know, nothing in that paragraph is even remotely confusing to people who understand the basics of constitutional law.
Then you see his problem.
Well, there's a reason I put "confusing" in quotes and it's not because I was actually confused. She seems to believe that Congress having the Constitutional power to do X somehow equals the President not having the Constitutional power to do X or Y.
Oh, NOW I see the issue. You're confusing her commentary on constitutional separation of powers issues (i.e., whether the president has the constitutional power to slash federal agencies established and funded by Congress without congressional approval) with her commentary on the Supreme Court's internal practices (whether it's appropriate for SCOTUS to stay a district court order based on an undeveloped factual record).
Or English.
And apparently 8 other Supreme Court Justices....
Nah, I meant what I said. She started with the conclusion she wanted, based on her feelings about Trump (as expressed in her dissent), and worked backward from there using bad reasoning, i.e. "Congress can Constitutionally do X, so that means the President can't also Constitutionally do X or Y".
Yeah, zero chance any of the other justices had any confusion about KBJ’s commentary. Disagreement does not equal confusion.
I’m not sure why you keep doubling down on your incorrect characterization of her argument, but you do you I guess.
Because her dissent is rife with emotion. That emotion is why she's all alone on this one.
Even if that's true, it has nothing to do with your mischaracterization of her disagreement with the majority. Can we expect a comment from you here anytime a justice writes something that is "rife with emotion"? Or are you reserving that critique only for the liberal women?
