Justice Alito rips Jackson a new one over 'utterly irresponsible' solo dissent

Justice Alito and DEI appointee Jackson

Justice Samuel Alito just unloaded on Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's latest solo dissent, and he didn't hold back on Biden's autopen D.E.I. appointee.

Alito's concurrence, joined by Gorsuch and Thomas, said Jackson's rhetoric "lacks restraint." He torched claims that terminating temporary protected status for Haitian migrants was driven by racial bias against non-white immigrants. 

No, wait, this time it was even better: Alito ripped into Jackson's lone dissent in the high-stakes Louisiana redistricting fight on Monday, labeling her arguments "baseless and insulting" after the Court moved to fast-track its recent ruling ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Writing in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, Alito directly slapped down Jackson, declaring that her "dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered."

"The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power," Alito wrote, adding that that was a "groundless and utterly irresponsible charge."

This latest clash just underscores how isolated Jackson has become on the bench, mainly because she isn't the brightest woman, [whatever that is, I'm not a biologist] on the SCOTUS bench. She didn't just split from the conservative majority; she went rogue from her two liberal colleagues too, who refused to sign on to her rant. Jackson unloaded on the Court for supposed overreach, continuing her habit of solo dissents where the Biden pick blasts every big majority decision that happens to go the way of President Trump and the Republicans.

In Monday's unsigned order, the Court cleared the way for Louisiana officials to quickly redo their congressional map, a move expected to boost Republican representation in the state ahead of the midterms.

Alito pointed out that dragging out the 6-3 ruling from last month, which tightened up Section Two of the Voting Rights Act by calling out Louisiana's map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, served zero practical purpose. Jackson's excuses for delaying the landmark decision were "trivial at best" and "baseless and insulting," he said.

"The dissent accuses the Court of 'unshackl[ing]' itself from 'constraints,'" Alito wrote. "It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint."

Jackson had clutched her pearls, warning that the Court's action risked meddling in an active election and creating the "appearance of partiality," all while ignoring the voting and legal mess already happening in Louisiana.

Legal watchers noted the unusually sharp tone from Alito, figuring it showed some real internal tension boiling over. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley put it plainly: "Justice Alito had had enough." Professor Turley explained that Alito shredded Jackson's lame 32-day procedural objection, calling it a "trivial" nitpick that put form over substance, especially since nobody asked for reconsideration. It would have meant waiting around for no reason while the other parties had urgent need to get the map finalized.

He added that Alito was particularly fed up with Jackson's "unprincipled" smear against the Court. The whole thing stems from the standard 32-day procedural window before a judgment drops to lower courts. Alito made clear that rule is flexible and mainly exists for rehearing petitions, which weren't coming here anyway.

Now Louisiana is in full scramble mode to roll out the new map, with ballots already mailed and the primary on pause. 

This decision will ripple across the country as other states scramble to get their own maps in order for the upcoming elections.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. Finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Alexandria Obviously-Comatose wants Chuck Schumer to have Senate declare Gorsuch & Kavanaugh Liars

Got her nails done to save America

Congresscommie Alexandria Obviously-Comatose (Dumb-NY) and Rep. Ted Lieu (Dumber-CA) have joined forces to issue a letter calling on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (Douche-NY) to say that SCOTUS Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are liars and while doing so, he should wag his finger at them. 

Obviously-Comatose, you may recall, had barely escaped the insurrection on Capitol Hill on January 6th when a man in horns, and others went into the Capitol and walked around. AOC was merely four blocks away and felt her life was in danger for some reason, and she is not a liar when she said that she almost died on that hill.

Anyway, the letter which was addressed to Schumer claimed that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, [both who were threatened with retaliation by Schumer] had lied to the Senate when they said during their respective confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was settled precedent.

“Our Constitutional Republic cannot tolerate Supreme Court Justices who lied in order to get confirmed. The legitimacy of the Court is at stake,” Lieu tweeted, sharing a screenshot of the letter. “Letter from @AOC and me requesting the Senate to make a finding on whether Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied to the American people.”

AOC shared Lieu’s lie and added her own, saying, “We cannot allow Supreme Court nominees lying and/or misleading the Senate under oath to go unanswered. Both GOP & Dem Senators stated SCOTUS justices misled them. This cannot be accepted as precedent. Doing so erodes rule of law, delegitimizes the court, and imperils democracy.”

“We request that the Senate make its position clear on whether Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied under oath during their confirmation hearings,” Obviously-Comatose and Lieu wrote in the letter, adding, “We must call out their actions for what they were before the moment passes so that we can prevent such a mendacious denigration of our fundamental rights and the rule of law from ever happening again.”

But neither Justice lied in their confirmation hearings. Here is Kavanaugh's response regarding the standing of both Roe and Casey. Nowhere did he mention of the decisions being irreversible:

Roe v. Wade “is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times. But then Planned — and this is the point that I want to make that I think is important. Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe and did so by considering the stare decisis factors,” he said in 2018. “So Casey now becomes a precedent on precedent. It is not as if it is just a run-of-the-mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered, but Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent.”

And here is what Gorsuch said when recognizing the precedent of Roe and the role Casey played in reaffirming the earlier opinion:

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” he told senators in March 2017. “It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Gorsuch added, “For a judge to start tipping his or her hand about whether they like or dislike this or that precedent would send the wrong signal. It would send the signal to the American people that the judge’s personal views have something to do with the judge’s job.”

* * *

 Consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies.

* * *

So it's clear that the liars are AOC and Lieu because neither Kavanaugh or Gorsuch lied and didn't even mislead. They simply followed the precedent set by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and then followed the law and the SCOTUS's larger precedent for righting wrongly-decided cases once they were confirmed.

Thank you, President Trump.

Tweet

Motion to have Chuck Schumer censured for threatening 2 SCOTUS justices

Call it what you want, but Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles "Flaring Nostrils" Schumer (D-NY) is facing strong backlash for threatening Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch on Wednesday.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has indicated that he intends to introduce a measure to censure Chuck.

In a pro-abortion rally in front of the Supreme Court today, Senator Schumer threatened Justices by name shouting, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

And this is BEFORE the court voted.

Hawley tweeted:

Now @chuckschumer is threatening Supreme Court Justices personally, to the point of implying their physical safety is endangered. Disgusting, shameful, and frankly, WEAK.
I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame. So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of #SupremeCourt

Jimmy Williams, a senior adviser to Tom Steyer’s miserably failed presidential campaign, responded to Schumer’s threat, stating:

“Threatening a sitting Justice regardless of their politics is dangerous. What Schumer said is gross inappropriate and unacceptable. He should clarify his words immediately or step down from leadership. We must be better than this.

Tom Steyer's former senior adviser https://t.co/qc6e9HxmcY— Cameron Cawthorne (@Cam_Cawthorne) March 5, 2020

Even the leftist law professor Lawrence Tribe blasted Schumer and tweeted:

These remarks by @SenSchumer were inexcusable. Chief Justice Roberts was right to call him on his comments. I hope the Senator, whom I’ve long admired and consider a friend, apologizes and takes back his implicit threat. It’s beneath him and his office.

Democrat Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, also criticized Schumer for his threat, saying:

“Schumer’s threat to the Court that ‘you will pay the price’ is a direct attack on the integrity of our courts,” Turley wrote “I criticized Trump for his reckless comments about the courts. Where is the chorus of condemnation of Schumer? Schumer sounded more like a stalker than a statesman.”

The most notable thing in this situation is the fact that the mainstream media is silent, and that's deplorable.

Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a terrorist gets his virgins.

Tweet

Unions may go the way of the phone booths

The Supreme Court of the United States is about to hear a challenge to labor unions having to do with a measly $45 monthly fee and the First Amendment.

SCOTUS may well overturn a four decade-old ruling allowing public sector unions to collect fees from non-members to cover costs of negotiating contracts for all employees. If the conservative majority court rules in favor of ending this violation of the First Amendment, as I see it, this will cost unions billions.

The case will be heard on February 26. It could change the relationship between public unions and the regular working stiffs who want to keep the money they earn rather than pay a union whose bosses make the big bucks.

Lee Saunders

The case was brought by Mark Janus, who works at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. He did not appreciate that money was being taken from his paycheck and didn't believe that he should be forced to pay union dues or fees just to be allowed to work for the state.

Janus didn't agree with the AFSCME union's politics and believed that under the First Amendment, he could not be forced to contribute. (Remember, that was the problem Obama thought he'd have with Obamacare, but SCOTUS ruled the payment to be a tax, so it didn't illegally force people to pay into it--it forced them legally to pay into it).

Janus quoted Thomas Jefferson who said to "compel a man to furnish contribution of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."

The liberal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Janus' argument and the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal.

If SCOTUS finds for Janus, it will put the screws to labor unions because without forced payment of fees, union funding would be in the dumper, mainly because unions don't do much for workers and their leaders are raking in the big bucks for themselves and people are getting wise to them.

States might try workarounds by paying employees less rather than deducting from their paychecks, and handing the money saved to the unions, but that sucks and may prove hard to pull off.

"The merits of the case, and 40 years of Supreme Court precedent and sound law, are on our side," touts Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME.

For Saunders, strong unions mean more money for him, and he believes they offer "the strength in numbers [workers] need to fight for the freedoms they deserve," such as the freedom to be forced to pay for something they don't want to pay for, but too bad for them.

The SCOTUS has gone in both directions on the issue of whether someone who benefits from a union can be forced to pay into that union (see Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 1977; Harris v. Quinn, 2014; and Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 2016).

In the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case, Justice Scalia died before it was adjudicated, but there was an excellent chance the decision would have gone in Friedrichs' favor but it ended in a split decision. 

The Janus case will be the one that can change four decades of union money-grabbing. Many experts see the decision to even take up the case as a sign the court is ready to side with Janus and overrule their precedent. Now with Neil Gorsuch as a member of SCOTUS, it looks like the experts know what they're talking about.



Tweet

Trump triumphs as travel ban is mostly reinstated

In a yoooge victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court lifted key components of an injunction against President Trump's proposed ban on travel from six nations that tend to be importers of terrorism. Not so coincidentally, these nations are Muslim-majority. 

The Supreme Court will revisit the ban in October when they go back in session.

This decision will have the justices delve into the biggest legal quagmire since Trump took office. His order temporarily restricts travel and the court made it clear that a limited version of the policy can immediately be enforced.

Much of the policy has been reinstated, but travelers who have family in the U.S. will be excluded from the ban.

"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded," the court wrote. "As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connections to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security."

Trump has been openly pissed off after his original executive order of January 27th, was partially blocked by a federal court.

"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?" Trump tweeted on February 4th.

Trump has been looking forward to the Supreme Court to take up the case and get it out of the hands of liberal (aka leftist) appellate judges.

Now that Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and he has since been confirmed, the balance of the court goes to the right side of the aisle.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: "The Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits--that is, that the judgments below will be reversed." This was also supported by justices Alito and Gorsuch. "The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its 'compelling need to provide for the Nation's security.'"

The federal appeals courts in California and Virginia ruled against Trump in recent weeks. And when Trump was a presidential candidate, a majority of the 4th Circuit appeals court cited his statements at the time that he was proposing a ban "preventing Muslim immigration."

But the White House frames the ban as a temporary move involving national security, and any fair-minded person who sees what's happening in the world would agree that a greater security threat exists from people coming from Islamic majority countries than from other nations.

The most difficult aspect of the immigration question the court will deal with is deciding just how much discretion does a president have over immigration. Courts have been deferential in the past and would allow presidents to use their discretion to deny entry to certain groups of refugees and diplomats.

The Immigration and Nationality Act passed in 1952 gives the president broad authority. Section 212 (f) states that: "Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Justice Thomas criticized the majority for the compromise made in Monday's ruling. He indicated that he would have allowed the order to be enforced in full and believes "the Court's remedy" would inspire a flood of new litigation.

"Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding--on perils of contempt--whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country," Thomas wrote. "The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who precisely has a 'credible claim' to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed 'simply to avoid §2(c)' of Executive Order No. 13780."

Hopefully, a more center-right Supreme Court will quash the attempts of the liberal appellate courts to obstruct Trump's reasonable executive orders.


Tweet

Senate GOP goes nuclear

Well, it's going to be a done deal. The Grand Old Party has set the nuclear option' to finalize the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Thanks to Harry Reid (who first used the 'nuclear option' to push through the Democrat's picks and thumb his nose at the Republicans) the GOP is now in the driver's seat. 

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he now has the votes to end the Democrat's veto power and have Gorsuch confirmed Friday. The voting should take place at around 11:30 a.m. 

The rule change would change the 67 vote threshold needed to a mere majority of 51 votes. 

Gorsuch, 49, is a highly qualified justice with a decade of federal appeals court experience and Senate Republicans say he will be a strong addition to the court.

Democrats say putting him on the court will result in more decisions favoring corporations over working-class Americans. These hypocrites are whining over the refusal last year to consider Obama's liberal choice of Judge Merrick Garland in spite of Joe Biden's rule of not seating a Supreme Court judge in the final days of a presidency until after the next election.

There are four Democrats who voted with the GOP for Gorsuch: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Joe Donnelly (D-IN).

Thank you Hairy Weed.


Tweet

They tried protests, now they'll try magic against Trump

"Bubble bubble, toilet trouble"

It was bad enough when protesters participated in Women's Marches, the Day Without Immigrants. Then there are the town hall meetings and the paid Soros hecklers.

Now it's getting serious. 

Now the freaking witches are getting into the act against President Donald Trump and they have potions and big pots with eye of newt and gingrich too along with buckets of Hillary fan tears and an orange lock of hair.

A Facebook page announced that the ritual of witches will be the first of many "to be performed at midnight every waning crescent moon until Donald Trump is removed from office."

And as the liquid from the magic potion returns to the sky, new Hillary fan tears will fill the pot back to the brim. 

The crescent moon lunatics which used the hashtag #magical resistance, plan to gather a minute before midnight on Friday at Trump Tower in New York City. They are currently in the process of determining whose timepiece they will use to mark the exact moment to do their magic.

The famed "Egyptian Magician" will not be in attendance, nor will the Jerky Boys.

Michael M. Hughes, "an eclectic [eccentric] magician" who wrote the binding spell for the event, but has yet to win the New York State Lottery after years of trying, said he heard that folks from near and far want to participate. He has even received messages from South Africa, Portugal, Denmark, and of course, Mexico. 

Hughes believes the turnout for the magical event will reach in the thousands, but if he's counting on the Mexicans for a big turnout, Trump may have something to say about that.

Hughes said the ritual isn't a curse nor intends to harm the President or his administration, because he fully knows that if this were the case, his magic butt would be in jail. Instead, Hughes said, it's "a way of restraining him from doing further harm," and help others feel powerful against him.

Thus far, Mr. Trump's harm has come from his nominating Neil Gorsuch, a conservative justice to the Supreme Court; defending the Constitution by upholding the immigration laws; nominating and getting confirmed for his Cabinet: Betsy DeVoss, James Mattis, John F. Kelly and others with conservative views; and undoing former socialist President Obama's executive orders.

That isn't harm; it's what presidents of opposing parties do, just like they 'clean house' of past administration people in government jobs that presidents assign.

But I digress.

Hughes practices a boatload of magical traditions including Greco-Egyptian, folk, African-allied and contemporary rituals. He is also adept at finding coins in the ears of children.

Hughes said that he will come prepared with business cards. He does parties, Christenings and Bar Mitzvahs and his fees are quite affordable.

Let's face it--Hughes hopes to clean up after this event, unlike the dirtbags at the North Dakota pipeline protest. 


Tweet

Gorsuch calls Trump's travel ban "disheartening and demoralizing"

Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, said the comments the president made regarding the federal appeals court deliberating on his travel restrictions were "disheartening and demoralizing."

This might actually mean that Gorsuch cannot be bought, but it could also be a smokescreen, a setup made by the two men to trick the Democrats into quickly confirming him to the highest court in the land 'till death do he part' in order to fill the court with GOPers who will back the party line on all decisions.

At least that's what "Chow Yuk Chuck" Schumer is likely thinking along with his leftist party.

According to a source on Trump's Supreme Court nomination committee who spoke to Fox News, the remark made by Gorsuch was at a meeting with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).

Blumenthal spoke to the media after the meeting and said Gorsuch "expressed to me that he is disheartened by the demoralizing and abhorrent comments by President Trump about the judiciary."

But perhaps Blumenthal was lying in order to create a smokescreen so that Republicans would be hesitant to cast a vote for Gorsuch, to cast doubt as to his party line loyalty.

On Wednesday, President Trump verbally attacked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals while they deliberated on his executive order, an order that subsequently overturned his executive order putting Trump in a position where he'll need to decide whether to take it to the Supreme Court or appeal the decision of the lower court.

The Democrats have called the temporary travel ban of seven terrorist spawning countries [with no intact central government to vet refugees and immigrants] a "Muslim ban," but that's just leftists being leftists. The seven countries, while predominantly Muslim, comprise only about ten percent of all Muslims, and the wording in the executive order makes no distinction about the religion aspect, only the countries involved.

Trump took to Twitter, as he is wont to do. He tweeted: "If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled. Politics!
--Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)"

Let me be crystal clear: the president is within the law to ban certain groups of people that he or she deems to be a potential problem to the security and safety of the American people.

I just wish he would not call judges "so called judges" and not be so petty about the small stuff.

Sad!



Tweet

POTUS' choice for SCOTUS short list ready

President Trump is ready to make his Supreme Court justice choice this week after the country has gone 11 months with an empty seat after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Democrats weren't happy with the wait, but since it was nearing the end of a socialist president's term, the GOP, under Mitch McConnell, thought it best to take the gamble and wait until after the election.

A brilliant move.

It was worth the wait as it is likely Trump will pick a conservative Constitutional originalist as Justice Scalia was, to fill the seat.

President Trump has assured us the decision is coming soon. "I'll be making my decision this week, we'll be announcing next week," he said after meeting with bipartisan Senate leaders Tuesday. "We'll pick a truly great Supreme Court justice."

It will be very, very great. So great we're going to say 'Hey Donald, your pick was too great. We're getting tired of all this greatness.'

According to sources who ask to remain anonymous in order to find out more secret stuff, the list is down to  three or four names, all of whom are federal appeals court judges.

You may recall that President Trump said at a presser last week before taking the oath of office that a decision on the pick for Supreme Court would come within two weeks after taking office.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer backed up that timeline on Monday, and said the nomination remains a "priority."

Trump already met with Judge William Pryor from the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in Birmingham, Ala. He is a close friend of the Attorney General nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).

Pryor was initially given a recess appointment to the appeals court but Senate Democrats tried to block his subsequent nominations, citing his strong criticism of the Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to kill her unborn baby. He called it the "worst abomination in the history of constitutional law."

As Ronald Reagan pointed out: "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."

Other possible judges on Trump's short list may be Judge Neil Gorsuch, on the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, with chambers in Denver. 

He was born in 1967 and went to Harvard Law School, clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. He then went into private practice before joining the Bush Justice Department. His mother is Anne Burford, the first female EPA administrator. He also wrote: "The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia."

Judge Thomas Hardiman, 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, with chamber in Pittsburgh.

He was born in 1965 and his 2010 ruling that a jail policy of strip-searching all those arrested does not violate the Fourth Amendment was affirmed by the Supreme Court. He also sits on the same court as President Trump's sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, but she is not being considered for any high court vacancy.

There are more possible considerations but we shall see what he does in the days to come.

So far, Trump has met with auto industry leaders and others, and will be meeting with the British and Canadian Prime Ministers, Theresa May and Justin Trudeau, respectively.

Just for the fun of it, I've put up a Steve Crowder video of the Women's March in Washington on Friday. It's only a bit over 8 minutes long but fun to watch. 

Tweet