{"id":1546712,"date":"2025-07-12T21:30:00","date_gmt":"2025-07-13T01:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/?p=1546712"},"modified":"2025-07-12T21:30:00","modified_gmt":"2025-07-13T01:30:00","slug":"i-have-a-wonderful-opportunity-justice-jacksons-cathartic-jurisprudence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/i-have-a-wonderful-opportunity-justice-jacksons-cathartic-jurisprudence\/1546712\/","title":{"rendered":"“I Have A Wonderful Opportunity”: Justice Jackson’s Cathartic Jurisprudence"},"content":{"rendered":"

“I Have A Wonderful Opportunity”: Justice Jackson’s Cathartic Jurisprudence<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Authored by Jonathan Turley,<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

I wrote recently about the\u00a0chilling jurisprudence<\/a>\u00a0of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has drawn the ire of colleagues in opinions for her rhetoric and extreme positions.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many have expressed alarm over her adherence to what has been described by a colleague as an \u201cimperial judiciary\u201d model of jurisprudence. Now, it appears that Jackson\u2019s increasingly controversial opinions are serving a certain cathartic purpose for the far-left Biden appointee.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

On ABC News, Jackson\u00a0stated,<\/a>\u00a0\u201cI just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that\u2019s what I try to do.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Her colleagues have not entirely welcomed that sense of license.<\/p>\n

The histrionic and hyperbolic rhetoric has increased in Jackson\u2019s opinions, which at times portray her colleagues as abandoning not just the Constitution but democracy itself.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Her dissent in the recent ruling on universal injunctions drew the rebuke of Justice Amy Coney Barrett over what was described as \u201ca vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.\u201d Barrett wrote:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe will not dwell on Justice Jackson\u2019s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries\u2019 worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Jackson, however, clearly feels that opinions are a way for her to opine on issues of the day.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0previously<\/a>\u00a0wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary.<\/strong><\/p>\n

District Court Judge\u00a0Tanya Chutkan,<\/a>\u00a0an 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 \u201ca blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.\u201d That \u201cone person\u201d was still under investigation at the time, and when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0proclaimed<\/a>\u00a0that the pardons could not change the \u201ctragic truth\u201d and \u201ccannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America\u2019s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.\u201d<\/p>\n

One of Chutkan\u2019s colleagues, Judge\u00a0Beryl Howell,<\/a>\u00a0also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump\u2019s actions,\u00a0writing,<\/a>\u00a0\u201c[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Then there is\u00a0Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee, who has been criticized for\u00a0conflicted rulings<\/a>\u00a0in Trump cases and\u00a0his bizarre (and ultimately abandoned) effort<\/a>\u00a0to banish January 6th defendants from the Capitol.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0add his own commentary<\/a>\u00a0on Trump\u2019s priorities and policies:<\/p>\n

\u201cDefendants\u2019 rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence. But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.\u201d<\/p>\n

For Justice Jackson, her opinions have at times left her isolated on the Court. <\/strong>Weeks ago, Jackson and Sotomayor\u00a0were alone<\/a>\u00a0in dissent over the defiance of a district court judge of the Court\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Kagan joined in the reversal of Murphy\u2019s conflicting order and wrote the new\u00a0order \u201cclarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.\u201d<\/p>\n

This week, Jackson lost even Sotomayor and stood alone in her dissent in support of an injunction over plans to downsize the government.<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

However, Jackson could and would.<\/p>\n

The controversial position of Jackson on the Court is not due to her liberal views.<\/strong> We have had many such liberal jurists. The difference is how Jackson views her role as a justice.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The danger is not confined to opinions. For years, justices have yielded to the temptations of public speaking before supportive groups. I have\u00a0long been a critic<\/a>\u00a0of what I called the era of \u201ccelebrity justices\u201d where members seem to maintain political constituencies in public events.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The \u201copportunity to tell people how I feel\u201d 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 \u201cone of nine\u201d is that you should speak only through your opinions and only on the narrow legal matter before you.<\/p>\n

Opinions must remain \u201copportunities\u201d to do simple justice, not a supreme editorial.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of \u201cThe Indispensable Right<\/a>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Tyler Durden<\/a><\/span>
\nSat, 07\/12\/2025 – 17:30<\/span><\/p>\n

\u200bhttps:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/markets\/i-have-wonderful-opportunity-justice-jacksons-cathartic-jurisprudence<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“I Have A Wonderful Opportunity”: Justice Jackson’s Cathartic Jurisprudence Authored by Jonathan Turley, I wrote recently about the\u00a0chilling jurisprudence\u00a0of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":1546713,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1546712","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","wpcat-1-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1546712","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1546712"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1546712\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1546713"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1546712"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1546712"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1546712"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}