Justice Ketanji Jackson thought-provoking question, the constitutionality of a laws. The Supreme Court, Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors, Jackson expressed confusion, questioning, “How Can a law be unconstitutional if I like it?”
A manufactured quote from a right wing rag existing to inflict embarrassment to liberals. What could be more compelling as a source🤪?
What is interesting are the racist and sexist comments below that are incredibly filled with hate. I hope most are bots 🤖 because it would be sad if real Americans made them.
After she talked about being in Japan and losing her wallet that she is in the jurisdiction of Japan and if it comes back then the wallet is in the jurisdiction of Japan and so is she because it was her wallet .. I paraphrase because it didn’t make any sense lol.. a wallet, and birthright citizen?? I had no idea what the hell she was talking about when she described her wallet, getting lost in Japan and being in the jurisdiction of Japan the woman is an idiot, an embarrassment to the Supreme Court of the United States..
This has to be tongue-in-cheek; it HAS to be…
I really do wish this had been broadcast (I LOVE listening to oral arguments before, and comments/questions from, SCOTUS. It's the minutiae, homies!) live, so I could hear this comment from the Associate Justice…🤷🏻♂️
What I found amusing was the question she posed during the birth right case today. Something along these lines; “does a woman need to bring documents to the delivery room to demonstrate that the baby she delivered should be a US citizen?” At least she knows what a woman is, but just to push her agenda
I'm confused. This is the Babylon Bee, right? I thought the Babylon Bee is an entirely satire publication. This is not satire, this is simply the truth.
It is not Babylon Bee. It is the truth. Jackson is nothing less or more than an idiot.
When I looked it up through AI, this is how it explained. “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised a thought-provoking question regarding the constitutionality of laws that individuals may personally favor. In a recent Supreme Court ruling, the court struck down Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors, with Jackson being the sole dissenter. She expressed confusion over how a law could be deemed unconstitutional despite her support for it”
Red - I know it's the Babylon Bee. Just wondering why an all satire publication is posting such a totally honest article. Is that there take on April Fools Day, publish a true story? Given who they are writing about it obviously must be true, even if it is in the Babylon Bee.
Concerns about Judicial Understanding The question of how Ketanji Brown Jackson can serve as a Supreme Court justice despite perceived misunderstandings of the Constitution raises significant discussions about judicial philosophy and interpretation. Critics argue that a fundamental grasp of constitutional principles is essential for justices to make informed decisions. However, justices often interpret the Constitution through various lenses, including originalism and progressive originalism, which can lead to differing views on its application.
A sitting judge, especially one on the Supreme Court has to throw away their own emotional and favorability or non-favorability of any law. A law is not constitutional because they like it, nor is it unconstitutional because they don’t like it. A judge has to rule only on the merits of the law, if the law fits within the framework of our constitution. A judge may literally HATE a law, but realizing the law is constitutional has the rule in favor of that law and vice a versa. Her reasoning is why she should not be a Supreme Court Justice.
So you just spent 19 minutes frantically searching the internet, praying to find evidence she actually said these things, and when you realize you are wrong, rather than just admitting it you double down. Well played bro.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment