• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ketanji Brown Jackson exposes the real judicial radicals

j brown's body

"A Soros-backed animal"
DP Veteran
Jun 18, 2018
Reaction score
Political Leaning
"Not so long ago, “conservatives” used to insist that the judiciary operate within constraints. Judges shouldn’t venture far from precedent, they finger-wagged. They should spell out the reasoning behind their rulings. In statutory interpretation, they should stick to the words of a text and the intent of its drafters. That description, usually referred to as “judicial restraint,” bears no resemblance to the current right-wing justices on the Supreme Court. It’s no secret that right-wing justices are on a crusade to rip up precedent. From their efforts to weaken union rights to their threats of abandoning decades of abortion law, they have revealed their willingness to undertake dramatic shifts in law simply because they now have the votes to do so. In 2019, within the space of six weeks, the right-wing majority took a sledgehammer to precedent twice.

...Clarence Thomas...has opined that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, decided in 1964, should be overridden. He has said the same about Roe v. Wade. As the late justice Antonin Scalia, no fuzzy-headed progressive, once said of Thomas, “He does not believe in stare decisis, period.” ...Jackson’s noncontroversial statements sound like an indictment of the rogue majority....“Our obligation as judges is not to create policy. And if Congress has enacted a statute that establishes a cause of action or restricts causes of action, then as a general matter I don’t think that courts can oppose one.” How unlike Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who last year gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by inventing a whole new test for determining whether courts can review a voting restriction, drawing from logic found nowhere in the law. Kagan, in her dissent, declared, “The majority’s opinion mostly inhabits a law-free zone.

...Jackson’s confirmation hearing has shown beyond any doubt that she understands the proper role of the judiciary. But it has also raised questions about whether the same could be said of the Republican-appointed justices."


Republicans make us a nation of judges, not a nation of laws.
Top Bottom