Meme - Kayla Elizabeth @VixenRogue: "How you know you're about to read some next level garbage"
"Justice Jackson was the sole dissenter."
Thread by @JonathanTurley on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has issued another sole stinging dissent. In a 7-2 decision (with liberal justice Elena Kagan joining the majority), the Court upheld the authority of police to make a stop based on the totality of the circumstances Jackson wrote that "I cannot fathom" how the seven justices could second-guess the lower court in rejecting the police claims. She accused her colleagues of mere "wordsmithing." Just for the record, it would be useful to review those words. The stop that Jackson (and the DC Circuit) found to be unjustified occurred after a call over a suspicious vehicle at 2am. When they arrived, two people ran from the car and the remaining passenger slowly began backing out of the parking lot with a door still open. Justice Jackson (and Justice Sotomayor, who notably declined to join her dissent) felt that those facts were not sufficient for the requisite suspicion needed for the stop. That seems a tad more than "wordsmithing."... There is a signature jurisprudence emerging in these dissents."
Ian Miller on X - "It really is remarkable how Ketanji Brown Jackson votes exclusively based on her political ideology with zero concern whatsoever for interpreting the laws and ruling on that basis. There’s no difference between having her or a random left wing influencer on the Supreme Court."
Thatch on X - "This is how the left always wins. Every single leftwinger who has even a sliver of power uses it to advance the cause no matter what laws, rules, norms, or customs they have to violate to do so. This is true from juries up to the Supreme Court and the presidency when they hold it. There is no system of government which can survive half the population not feeling bound by it. The only things which still work are run by the right and they run less and less due to the left rigging everything."
Phil Holloway ✈️ on X - "Ketanji Brown couldn’t even get Sototomayor to join her ridiculous dissent"
CHARLIE 🇺🇸 on X - "I’m beginning to think that Jackson doesn’t adjudicate the law. She adjudicates her feelings."
When the liberal justices break ranks, you know that it's a super clear cut case, since they almost always vote in lockstep
The Chilling Jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson - "The opinion seemed to fan the flames of “democracy is dying” claims of protesters, suggesting that basic limits on injunctive relief could result in the collapse of our core institutions. It was a hyperventilated opinion better suited to a cable program than a Court opinion. The response from Justice Amy Coney Barrett was a virtual pile driver of a rebuke. What was notable is that a majority of the justices signed off on the takedown. It could indicate a certain exasperation with histrionics coming from the left of the Court in recent years...
'The Court moved to free the Administration from an onslaught of orders from district judges seeking to block the President in areas ranging from the downsizing of government to immigration. However, it was the departure of the normally staid court analysis that attracted the most attention. The tenor of Jackson’s language shocked not just many court watchers, but her colleagues. It seemed ripped from the signs carried just a couple of weeks earlier in the “No Kings” protests. The Court often deals with issues that deeply divide the nation. Yet it tends to calm the waters by engaging in measured, reasoned analysis — showing the nation that these are matters upon which people can have good-faith disagreements. But that culture of civility and mutual respect has been under attack in recent years. Not long ago, the Court was rocked by the leaking of the draft of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. That was followed by furious protests against conservative justices at their homes and an attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.' There was also a change in the tenor of the exchanges in oral argument and opinions between the justices. Recently, during the argument over the use of national injunctions in May, Chief Justice John Roberts was clearly fed up with Justice Sotomayor interrupting government counsel with pointed questions and commentary, finally asking Sotomayor, “Will you please let us hear his answer?” This hyperbole seemed to border on hysteria in the Jackson dissent. The most junior justice effectively accused her colleagues of being toadies for tyranny. It proved too much for the majority, which pushed back on the overwrought rhetoric. While the language may seem understated in comparison to what we regularly hear in Congress, it was the equivalent of a virtual cage match for the Court... Liberals who claim “democracy is dying” seem to view democracy as getting what you want when you want it. It was, therefore, distressing to see Jackson picking up on the “No Kings” theme, warning about drifting toward “a rule-of-kings governing system” She said that limiting the power of individual judges to freeze the entire federal government was “enabling our collective demise. At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.” The “minutiae” dismissed by Jackson happen to be the statutory and constitutional authority of federal courts. It is the minutiae that distinguish the rule of law from mere judicial impulse. Justice Barrett clearly had had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.” She added, “We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s 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.” In other words, the danger to democracy is found in judges acting like kings. Barrett explained to her three liberal colleagues that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.” The last term has laid bare some of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a certain exasperation with having to closely follow the text of laws. (In an earlier dissent this term, Jackson lashed out against the limits of textualism and argued for courts to free themselves from the confines — or shall we say the “minutiae” — of statutory language). In this opinion, Barrett slams Jackson for pursuing other diversions “because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese.'” Again, what Jackson refers to as “legalese” is the heart of the judicial function in constraining courts under Article III. Untethered by statutory or constitutional text, it allows the courts to float free from the limits of the Constitution. For many, that is not an escape into minutiae but madness without clear lines for judicial power."
Time to blame conservatives for raising the temperature by not aceding to everything on the left's wishlist
“I have a Wonderful Opportunity”: Justice Jackson’s Cathartic Jurisprudence - "I wrote recently about the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has drawn the ire of colleagues in opinions for her rhetoric and extreme positions. Many have expressed alarm over her adherence to what has been described by a colleague as an “imperial judiciary” model of jurisprudence. Now, it appears that Jackson’s increasingly controversial opinions are serving a certain cathartic purpose for the far-left Biden appointee. On ABC News, Jackson stated, “I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do.” Her colleagues have not entirely welcomed that sense of license. 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. Her dissent in the recent ruling on universal injunctions drew the rebuke of Justice Amy Coney Barrett over what was described as “a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”... Jackson, however, clearly feels that opinions are a way for her to opine on issues of the day. She is not alone. Across the country, liberal judges have been adding their own commentary to decisions in condemning Trump, his supporters, and his policies. I previously wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. Chutkan lashed out at “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was still under investigation at the time, and when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go. Later, Chutkan again added her own commentary when asked to dismiss a case due to Trump pardoning Jan. 6 defendants. She acknowledged that she could not block the pardons but proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.” One of Chutkan’s colleagues, Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump’s actions, writing, “[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.” Then there is Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee, who has been criticized for conflicted rulings in Trump cases and his bizarre (and ultimately abandoned) effort to banish January 6th defendants from the Capitol. Last week, Mehta had a straightforward question of jurisdiction concerning a challenge to the denial of grants by the Trump Administration. While correctly dismissing the challenge, Mehta decided to add his own commentary on Trump’s priorities and policies... For Justice Jackson, her opinions have at times left her isolated on the Court. Weeks ago, Jackson and Sotomayor were alone in dissent over the defiance of a district court judge of the Court’s decision on universal injunctions. To her credit, Justice Elena Kagan (who voted with Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent in the earlier case) voted with her conservative colleagues in rebuking Judge Brian Murphy in Boston... This week, Jackson lost even Sotomayor and stood alone in her dissent in support of an injunction over plans to downsize the government. Sotomayor observed that the Trump order only ordered for agencies to plan for such downsizing and said that the courts could hardly enjoin such policy preparations in the Executive Branch. However, Jackson could and would. The controversial position of Jackson on the Court is not due to her liberal views. We have had many such liberal jurists. The difference is how Jackson views her role as a justice. The danger is not confined to opinions. For years, justices have yielded to the temptations of public speaking before supportive groups. I have long been a critic of what I called the era of “celebrity justices” where members seem to maintain political constituencies in public events. Such speeches can not only undermine the integrity of the Court by discussing matters that may come before it, but they can create a desire to maintain the adoration of supporters. The greatest danger is that justices will consciously or subconsciously pander to their bases with soundbites and inflammatory rhetoric. Judicial advocacy from the bench has been a concern since the founding. Article III can have a corrosive impact on certain jurists who come to view themselves as anointed rather than appointed. Most judges and justices are acutely aware of that danger and struggle to confine their rulings to the merits of disputes, avoiding political questions or commentary. The “opportunity to tell people how I feel” can become a slippery slope where opinions become more like judicial op-eds. The Court is not a cable show. The price of the ticket to being “one of nine” is that you should speak only through your opinions and only on the narrow legal matter before you. Opinions must remain “opportunities” to do simple justice, not a supreme editorial."
'Met Police facial recognition tech mistook me for wanted man' - "A man who is bringing a High Court challenge against the Metropolitan Police after live facial recognition technology wrongly identified him as a suspect has described it as "stop and search on steroids". Shaun Thompson, 39, was stopped by police in February last year outside London Bridge Tube station. Privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch said the judicial review, due to be heard in January, was the first legal case of its kind against the "intrusive technology"."
Thread by @echetus on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Hey @sonjajessup, @silkiecarlo Do you think it was it good faith and fair reporting to run this story without mentioning the man Shaun Thompson was mistaken for... was Shaun Thompson's brother? Don't you think this sentence should read "One officer used a handheld device to compare my features to those in a photo [which was of my brother]. I assured them that I was not the person they were looking for [because I knew it was my brother]" ?
I'm no editor, but I've got a proposed revision: "he was held whilst they asked for identity documents, demanded fingerprint scans, inspected him for scars and tattoos, seeking to confirm he was the suspect [who, being his brother, looked a lot like him]"
do you think you were misleading parliament when you suggested it was racial bias, rather than a family resemblance, that caused the mix up?
This is the funniest possible ending to this story"
Thread by @gmhales on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - ""Two people have lost a High Court challenge against the Metropolitan Police over its use of live facial recognition technology (LFR) in London" #livefacialrecognition... Interesting further detail from the full judgment: "Although officers doubted whether the first claimant was the person on the watchlist, they nevertheless scrutinised him, asked questions and made him prove his identity." Para 137 seems significant: "There was no challenge to that description [of no statistically significant differences in matching rates] and no evidence to contradict it." "the claimants do not raise any issues in relation to the Public Sector Equality Duty under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010"... Ps, Mr Thompson's brother was "subject of an outstanding arrest warrant issued by a court for breach of bail following an allegation that he had caused grievous bodily harm to Mr Thompson.""
Liz Collin on X - "🚨NEW: Osseo Schools has confirmed to @AlphaNews that its remodel project at Park Center Senior High includes a prayer room and that foot-washing stations are being added to Osseo Senior High School. The district, located in the northwest suburbs of Minneapolis, says the foot-washing plans “were included in updated plans after hearing from user groups on student needs.” “This is undoubtedly for Muslim students only. I cannot understand how this can be happening in this era of no religion in schools,” the tipster said."
Time to ban Christian prayer in schools as a violation of separation of church and state
Terrence K Williams | Facebook - "Muslim students in New York are getting prayer rooms, prayer mats, daily prayer passes, Ramadan gym alternatives, and music class accommodations. Christian students don’t appear to be getting the same treatment. Muslim students in New York public schools asked for more religious accommodations — and the Syracuse City School District says schools are now making changes. At PSLA at Fowler, students now have a designated prayer room where they can request a daily pass and take time each day to pray, either alone or as a group. The school also purchased prayer mats after staff noticed some students were kneeling on jackets or sweatshirts to pray. The district says Muslim students may also request alternatives in certain classes — including wearing a headset in music class if they choose not to listen to music, or doing an alternative gym activity during Ramadan."
Clay Travis on X - [On Democrats being more mentally ill than Republicans] "My theory: Convincing young people they are powerless victims makes them more likely to have mental health issues. Conversely belief in your own agency and ability leads to much stronger mental health."
SL55 AMG on X - "Opposite take. People with a disposition towards mental health issues are naturally attracted to the Democratic Party, where there is “acceptance” and no accountability for personal behavior."
Thread by @charliesmirkley on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "What closes the ideology-mental health gap?🧵 Education actually doubles the gap. Thus the gap isn’t caused by uneducated conservatives refusing to seek help. The mental health gap is stronger among above-median earners. The ideology-mental health link barely moves within the marriage subgroup. Having kids slightly reduces the link, but increases the rate for each group. This is probably an age effect. Church attendance mostly eliminates the ideology-mental health gap. But few young liberals attend so that the sample is very small (n=13 liberal monthly+)."
The cope needs to be changed to richer and more educated conservatives somehow being even more in denial about mental illness than liberals
Teaching Slavery in the High School Latin Classroom - "By the third chapter of Ecce Romani, we have met Davus, an enslaved person whom Sextus and Marcus love to annoy. A few chapters later we learn that after Davus was purchased he was fearful about his future with his new master, but “he needn’t have worried. Old Titus proved the be the kindest of masters.” Because of rhetoric like this, many secondary students end up forming the impression that slavery in the ancient world was not that bad. Dr. Sarah Bond of the University of Iowa has witnessed this in her own classes, recounting, “In many students’ minds slavery in the ancient world wasn’t as bad because of the high rates of manumission and because it wasn’t predicated on race.” This sanitized view of slavery can inadvertently reinforce misguided beliefs that slavery was an acceptable part of life in other periods of history. Dr. Jeffries told me, “It is important to teach all slavery accurately and truthfully. Slavery is not just unfortunate, it is a crime against humanity.” Two years ago, troubled by the way slavery is portrayed in many resources I have typically used in my classroom, I changed my approach. My current goals are for students to recognize that all slavery is a crime against humanity, understand the role of race in transatlantic slavery, and contemplate the impact slavery on our country today. This new approach has sparked very productive classroom conversations and helped students broaden their perspectives on slavery, both ancient and American... I ask students to make connections between ancient Roman slavery and American slavery"
Left wing logic: the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was uniquely evil because chattel slavery was inherited and race-based, but Roman slavery was almost as bad and can be compared to American slavery. Of course, it's Islamophobic to talk about Muslim slavery
Kelvin MacKenzie on X - "Thanks to the Telegraph I learn landlords in London are advertising for Muslim-only tenants on Facebook and Gumtree. It’s illegal. The ads say things like “ for 2 Muslim boys” or “ 2 Muslim girls” or “ Muslims preferred”. The areas covered include Newham, Barking, East Ham, Dagenham, Walthamstow, Redbridge. When the Telegraph called up the landlords And asked if non-Muslims would be considered, one said “ go away” and another said no and put the phone down. Other ads say only Punjabi or Gujarati speaking tenants or people from Kerala. Why Facebook and Gumtree are taking such ads when they are clearly illegal under the 2010 Equality Act is beyond me. Imagine the outcry from Muslims if an ad had said Catholic, Jew or Methodist tenants only."
Keith Humphreys on X - "As someone affiliated with a law school, I always feel like we faculty are failing when law students scream/disrupt/shout down visiting speakers they don't like (e.g., conservative judges). In their careers, our graduates will sometimes have to argue cases in front of people they don't like or agree with, and if all they can do is chant and snap and hold up signs with disrespectful slogans on them, their clients will lose (and in criminal cases, this cost will fall heavily on members of the groups that these students most want to help). When I see law students doing this, I see people who are failing in their chosen profession and as one of the people who is supposed to help them succeed, that means I am failing too."
Gud Trouble on X - "Those particular students are unlikely to be working in the private sector where they would be "graded" in that way. They are more likely to be working for an NGO and being paid with our tax dollars regardless of their behavior. That is the business model of the activist class."
Meme - "Male characters and their models look the same, but female characters are altered to appease some ugly weirdos"
"Horizon Zero Dawn, Horizon Forbidden West. Lanee Reddick
Cyberpunk 2077, Keanu Reeves
Cyberpunk 2077, Idris Alba
Quantum Break, Shawn Ashmore
Jedi: Survivor, Cameran Monaghan
Horizon Forbidden West, Hannah Hoekstra
Star Wars Outlaws, Humberly Gonzalez
Fable 4, Lily Nichol
Spider-Man 2, Stephanie Tyler
MassElfect Andromeda, Jayde Rossi"
Meme - Adam B. Coleman, Proud Father & Imperfect Man @wrong_speak: "Them: I'm a good person who cares about black people, @AlysonRenewed . Also Them: You black fool! Keep voting for the racist party! By the way, how's the watermelon?!"
LeeAnnWillMike: "So you try to insult with "woke". pfffft Go ahead & support the political party that elevates WASPs like me. I encourage you to keep on voting red & continue to give my kids that extra advantage over you & yours. Did your family have a Halloween party & carve watermelons?"
Cynthia Breheny @PTElephant: "A black woman once came to my defense arguing against forcing doctors to perform surgeries they didn't agree with The white liberal we were arguing with called her a c**n immediately It was the first time I'd seen it used as a slur in over 2 decades. It blew my mind 💀"
There's so much evidence out there that left wingers are more racist
Man found NCR for Toronto army recruiting centre attack can travel - "A man found not criminally responsible on three counts of attempted murder for a March 2016 knife attack at a Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre in Toronto has been granted a three-week travel pass for Saudi Arabia and Somalia, despite the fact that he “continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.” Ayanle Hassan Ali, who is Muslim, plans to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca with his father and meet a potential bride his dad found for him in Somalia."
Wilfred Reilly on X - "Being ashamed of being white, male, Jewish, rich, or a member of any other powerful group makes sense only if you accept modern Prey Morality. I.e., if you believe that (1) the definition of moral behavior is having empathy toward others and never causing them risk/harm and (2) that moral analysis occurs at the group level, it to some extent makes sense to feel guilt about the conquests of Cortez or the historical oppression of women. But, if you believe in any form of "master" or Yeoman Morality - i.e., that (1) the definition of moral behavior is training in the things of the Good and improving the world OR is building the strength of your in-group and (2) that moral analysis occurs at the individual level - the very idea makes no sense. First, why would I ever feel guilty about the actions of strong people who...aren't me? But, second - since there are more ~good people than ~bad ones - isn't it far more relevant that my strong group does the most good than that we do the most bad? Some typical patent rate data appears below, as an illustration of what I mean by this. Positionality determines perspective."
Is Dress Code a Human Rights Issue? - "In Zanette v. Ottawa Chamber Music Society, 2024 HRTO 998, the applicant was a volunteer who sought to wear a rainbow flag sticker on his volunteer name badge but was prohibited from doing so by the respondent in accordance with their dress code policies. The applicant, who was a member of the 2SLGBTQ2 community, alleged that this prohibition was discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. The tribunal applied the three part test to determine whether there was a prima facie case for discrimination: 1) Was the complaint a member of the protected group? 2) Did the complaint suffer a disadvantage or adverse impact? And 3) was the protected characteristic a factor in this adverse impact? The tribunal had no issue answering “yes” to the first two questions, but examined the third question in depth. They first found that the prohibition was not a direct discriminatory act against the complainant, since it was the enforcement of general policies. The tribunal then found that the prohibition also did not amount to indirect discrimination, because there was no evidence that the wearing of the rainbow flag sticker was an essential element of being a member of the 2SLGBTQ2 community."
