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 ...
If Justice Affirmative Action is angry about this I’m happy.
I bet she uses “axe” instead of ask, and “pacific” instead of specific. Wilson Goode comes to mind.
I posted an edit to my original post.
Maybe Congre$$ should pass a law that requires Supreme Court appointees have an IQ at least 37.
How can anyone be against fair elections?
Only crooks are.
Who is paying her off?
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.