Cat fight at the Supreme Court!
theAspenbeat.com,
by
Glenn Beaton
Original Article
Posted By: Big Bopper,
6/28/2025 10:38:01 AM
Girls don’t usually fight. There are sound reasons for this – reasons of general decorum, biology, hormones, jewelry, dresses and hairdos.
But when they do, boy oh boy, it can be a doozy. It happened yesterday at the Supreme Court.
The case was an appeal of a district court order issuing a “universal injunction” against President Trump’s executive order seeking to abolish “birthright citizenship.”
Birthright citizenship is the kind you get if you’re born in America even if your parents are here illegally. The 14th Amendment seems to provide for it, although there is a non-frivolous argument that it does not.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Golden Goose 6/28/2025 11:04:12 AM (No. 1970398)
They’ll reach rapprochement the next time ACB temporarily loses her mind. It can’t be long now. Thank goodness she got this one right!
18 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
BeatleJeff 6/28/2025 11:12:23 AM (No. 1970402)
It wasn't a fair fight. Kentecloth Brown Jackson, Old Demented's DEI SCOTUS appointment, is a mental midget who couldn't think her way out of a paper bag.
29 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
DVC 6/28/2025 11:16:00 AM (No. 1970406)
Justice "I don't know what a woman is" Jackson is a low IQ person who sees the entire world through the dark and warped lens of anti-white racism. She is racist to her core, and no issue, in her warped mind, is not a "white supremacist issue".
This inevitably leads her to make absolutely nonsensical writings from the bench. And Justice Barrett is a high IQ individual, and sees through these nonsense writings and apparently has run out of patience with the idiot.
35 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
earlybird 6/28/2025 11:17:38 AM (No. 1970408)
Barrett did a fine job. She may finally be hitting her stride.
35 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
dbdiva 6/28/2025 11:21:41 AM (No. 1970413)
Is it a true catfish if one of the girls is unable or unwilling to identify as one?
13 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
dbdiva 6/28/2025 11:22:56 AM (No. 1970414)
Correction to 5: catFIGHT
11 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
anniebc 6/28/2025 11:37:07 AM (No. 1970427)
Um, girls fight all the time.
10 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
PESSIMIST 6/28/2025 11:37:40 AM (No. 1970428)
Glen Beaton is a great writer, but it undermines the power of the decision to focus on the female v female aspect ("catfight"). FIVE other justices signed onto Barrett's opinion -- there were no caviling concurrences to the court's opinion to avoid her brutal statement about Jackson. This is an unprecedented rebuke by the court of unprofessionalism and lack of learning on the part of a fellow judge. And, of course, a dramatic revelation of the consequences of DEI appointments, in this case an appointment to one of the most important positions in our government.
30 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Lazyman 6/28/2025 11:38:29 AM (No. 1970430)
She had to remind Jackson of the oath she took. Jackson probably has trouble defining "oath".
17 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
itsonlyme 6/28/2025 11:49:01 AM (No. 1970436)
April, 2022
53-47
The usual members of the RINO Hall Of Fame:
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Romney (R-UT), Yea
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00134.htm
Mitt Romney - "Pierre Delecto", ""C'est moi"
7 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
bpl40 6/28/2025 11:53:11 AM (No. 1970437)
I don't know what degree of Constitutional legal expertise the author possesses. But the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't "seem ' to suggest anything close to a universal birthright citizenship. All literature from the time of it's passing including statements and speeches of it's sponsors, point to a single purpose. Giving emancipated Negro (that's what they called them at the time) slaves relief from ambiguity into US citizenship. That is all. What followed id deliberate misinterpretation by left wing justices intent on doing the Democrats' bidding. THIS is the inequity that the SCOTUS must correct in October. All indications are it will be another 6-3.
20 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 6/28/2025 12:01:27 PM (No. 1970445)
Jumanji will just get increasingly bitter and histrionic. See e.g. Jasmine Crockett.
12 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Italiano 6/28/2025 12:04:05 PM (No. 1970448)
Jackson is an unqualified moron. Everyone knew it, even the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who evaluated her nomination. Evidently, the clerks she hired, especially the one who drafted her idiotic dissent, are also morons.
Incapable of embarrassment.
19 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Newtsche 6/28/2025 12:18:52 PM (No. 1970453)
ACB will be pounded for her necessary takedown of KBJ. Will Barrett be mugged by reality and see the light or will she double down to prove she's not racist? Her history is not reassuring.
8 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
nwcudagal 6/28/2025 12:30:29 PM (No. 1970462)
DEI = "Didn't Earn It"
12 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
paral04 6/28/2025 3:04:55 PM (No. 1970509)
Why is it a "Cat Fight" when two women disagree but no snide remarks when two men disagree..
4 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 6/28/2025 3:06:05 PM (No. 1970510)
Jackson would fit better on "the View" than on the SCOTUS. The women there think their opinion carries more weight than the law.
Coney Barrett wrapped her opinion thoroughly in the law, as it should be, and then pointed out that Jackson's opinion was ONLY that, an opinion. Thankfully, we have a court that no longer works with personal opinion but instead turns to the law, as written, and the precedent surrounding it.
The only reason to set the law aside would be by finding a flaw in the legal reasoning that upholds the law or the way it is enforced. That can happen but is rare and you still need to supply a tightly reasoned argument as to why a change should be made. Jackson appealed to no legal reasoning whatsoever, an embarrassment that ACB pointed out.
Also, since the Great Waffler, Roberts, signed on to the majority opinion, Jackson has no support for her position. Her angst was an embarrassment to the court and that's another reason that she is in trouble. Roberts likes a well mannered court. Coney Barrett stuck to a legal slice and dice of Jackson in her rebuttal of Jackson's opinion but Jackson attacked her fellow judges with personal insults.
I suspect that Jackson's remaining tenure on the court will not be pleasant,
5 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 6/28/2025 3:22:36 PM (No. 1970515)
Ok, ACB, so far so good on the comeback. As for you, Katanji, maybe excusing yourself from SCOTUS would make more sense at this point. Your understanding of rule of law and morality are different from ours. I get it. You were an affirmative action hour.
3 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 6/28/2025 3:23:30 PM (No. 1970516)
hire not hour.
2 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Venturer 6/28/2025 4:16:56 PM (No. 1970529)
Women do not fight. You must mean white women do not fight.
0 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Highvoltage 6/28/2025 4:28:02 PM (No. 1970531)
It looks like Robert’s realized it best a female justice would be the best to yield the hammer. Kegan recently said in an interview that district court judges shouldn’t be able to rule on national presidential issues however she voted with the minority. I suspect more out of support for Jackson.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Big Bopper"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)