Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/28/2026 6:36:57 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The justice’s dissent over the SAVE voter-verification system continues her increasingly public dispute with the Court’s majority.
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may use the SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database for voter-verification purposes. Pursuant to an executive order issued by President Trump last March, about half of the nation’s 50 states have been accessing the database to assure that their voter rolls contain only American citizens living within their jurisdictions. In June, however, Biden-appointed District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled that it was unconstitutional for the DHS to share the database with states. Friday’s SCOTUS ruling granted the Trump DOJ’s request for a stay. And Justice Jackson was not pleased.
She responded with a 12-page dissent that accused the Court’s majority of misreading both Supreme Court precedent and U.S. statutes by allowing the DHS and the White House to unilaterally expand the executive branch’s authority. Jackson’s dissent was full of cheap shots at the majority and infantile analogies such as the following: “[I]n balancing the equities, the majority only looks at one side of the scale — the judicial equivalent of expecting a seesaw with weight applied on only one side to work properly.” This was meant to refute the majority’s opinion that the judge’s ruling “inhibits the Federal Government’s efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections.”
Appointed by former President Biden in 2022, Justice Jackson is the Supreme Court’s youngest and least experienced member. Evidently, it has never occurred to her that this calls for a certain amount of humility. Instead, she has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of its practices and her more seasoned colleagues — in written opinions as well as public speeches.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
She’s not sure what a “voter”, is?
The Africans wouldn’t want her.
I’m sure you will agree that depends entirely on which justice you were to replace.
Enforceable legal precedent to this diversity hire is not issue forth from prior case law or statutory law but what she reads in the editorial on the NY Times.
The democrats want to pack the court with 4 more just like her.
They are trying to create a 1 party authoritarian state where they never lose an election and the Constitution means whatever they say.
To “save democracy”.
I used to think Sotomayor was the dumbest justice on SCOTUS.
I was wrong. It’s KJB by a landslide...
Which makes her perfect for anything the Democrats want.
so a low IQ negro throws a fit...so what?
I can see that everyday at McDonalds or Starbucks if I wanted to.
“[I]n balancing the equities, the majority only looks at one side of the scale — the judicial equivalent of expecting a seesaw with weight applied on only one side to work properly.”
This statement reveals a great deal about why KBJ should not be on the SCOTUS. In some legal cases, “balancing the equities” has a significant role; in this one it does not. The Constitution either allows the Executive Branch to assist the States by providing data that is critical to preventing non-citizens from registering to vote and voting in federal elections, or it doesn’t.
It’s a yes/no question. The Constitution, and 237 years of Executive Branch relations with the States, laws, and legal precedents are the grist for the decision mill. Whose interests are served or diminished has no place in this determination.
Because non-citizens have no right to register and vote in federal elections, their interest in the situation is legally a nullity. So whose “equity” is KBJ concerned about? On the old see-saw you have protecting 300 million legit voters from being cheated by fraudsters on one end, and on the other, the negligible weight of some small percentage of 40 million non-citizens who have illegally registered. Interests in preserving the privacy of social security numbers, legal addresses, and birth dates lack weight — the States already have this data for income taxes, Medicaid, multiple welfare programs, driving licenses, etc.
Our heroic US Senate put this dope on the Court for life. Awful.
50 states have been accessing the database to assure that their voter rolls contain only American citizens living within their jurisdictions.
It’s “to ensure....”
Yes, Lewiston is where they brought in the Somalis.
Somalis are very good at working the system and taking advantage of all government handouts. Same in Burlington, VT and Minneapolis. Thank you Nick Shirley.
When I was referring to immigrants(even illegal) wanting to improve themselves, I was referring to primarily Hispanic people from Central and South America.
Many of which are Catholic family oriented people.
That are willing to work harder than most Americans to get ahead.
Many of us born in this country TAKE FOR GRANTED the ability we have to change our fortune in ONE generation. The USA really is the land of opportunity. Much more than almost anywhere else in the world. IF you are willing to work hard and save your money. You can literally become rich(legally) in one generation. Most countries in the world, people can not do that. Even in many FIRST world countries in Europe.
“[I]n balancing the equities, the majority only looks at one side of the scale — the judicial equivalent of expecting a seesaw with weight applied on only one side to work properly.”
Boy, that’s some elegant word crafting there, Madame Justice. She must have thought of it herself as opposed to her clerks. That latter may be leftwing nuts, but they’re hired from top schools and likely smarter than the boss. Of course, just about everyone is smarter than the justice
Discussion and disagreement are necessary to any civilization. But, almost all the time the fringe nutjobs pervert this to mean that you are not allowed to judge anyone or their actions.
To that I say bullshitte.
We must judge, it is essential to being an adult. If someone is spouting nonsense it must be called out, respectfully at first. If they persist in pushing an obvious silliness (e.g., 2 = 2 can equal 5) they should be disparaged and then ignored. We cannot allow a discussion to be flooded and then defeated by chaff.
I absolutely don’t get concerned, upset, or even interested in people who I know to be intellectually dimwitted or malformed when they lose their minds and act out emotionally, or simply put pen to paper or step in front of a camera and simply, and unselfconsciously show how mentally stunted they are.
I fully expect that from them, as it is wholly in line with what is expected from them.
And when they do that, it validates my assumptions about them.
Wow. No kidding...when you put it that way...
H1-B workers are Legal. It is creation of your elected politicians supported by big outfits such as Amazon, Microsoft, Walmart, Google, etc. Those outfits are making big profits using cheaper labor from H1-B workers. The big corporations are big political donors. Peons like me and you have no power except vote for some different politicians. But politicians survive with donations.
On the positive side, H1-B workers have the lowest crime rate , lowest welfare (actually none are eligible) compared to any other group.
I would like to see KBJ hooked up to a lie detector and asked what she thinks about white people. Racism is wrong, no matter which direction the arrow is pointing.
Indeed.
respectfully at first.
And second, and third ... name-calling, stereotyping, and hurling mindless invective are the antithesis of intelligent discussion.
H1B visa holders ACT AS invaders, regardless of legality. I oppose the entire system.
Defending something solely on the basis of legality is a bit misguided. Keeping people as chattel was once legal. Putting subhumans (lit: under-men) in concentration camps was once legal. Slaughtering babies in utero currently IS legal ... even constitutionally protected in some States.
your elected politicians
It seems to me that an actual American who votes would describe those creatures in Washington as "OUR elected politicians".
On the positive side
There isn't one.
Did she end it with “and in closing, the majority conclusion was jacked up, and shit.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.