From: NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: The Supreme Court puts liberal justices in their place
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 17:29:51 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
We will not dwell on Justice Jacksons argument, which is at odds with
more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the
Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an
imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.
No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But
the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this
obligationin fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from
doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)
(concluding that James Madison had violated the law but holding that
the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him
to follow it). But see post, at 15 (Jackson, J., dissenting) (If
courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to
law universally, . . . compliance with law sometimes becomes a matter
of Executive prerogative). Observing the limits on judicial
authorityincluding, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary
Act of 1789is required by a judges oath to follow the law.
Justice Jackson skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing
statute involves boring legalese, post, at 3, she seeks to answer a
far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a
federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to
follow the law? Ibid. In other words, it is unnecessary to consider
whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how
the Judiciary may constrain the Executive.
Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: Everyone,
from the President on down, is bound by law.
That goes for judges too.
------End of Excerpt------
You know, Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg got along. They were
friends, despite disagreeing. It's not unprecedented for disagreeing
judges to still respect each other. Clearly, Justice Jackson is beyond
that. She's just THAT unqualified.
__________________
Link to the formal opinion:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/606/24a884/ See less