Justice Kagan’s Hypocrisy on Universal Injunctions
American Spectator,
by
David Catron
Original Article
Posted By: gaboy,
6/30/2025 2:27:54 AM
Last Friday’s Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA finally ended what many of the President’s supporters saw as a “judicial insurrection.” Upon assuming office, President Trump issued a number of executive orders involving a variety of issues. They were immediately challenged by lawsuits filed in a select group of district courts, virtually all of which issued universal injunctions that seriously impeded implementation of the President’s agenda. Such injunctions have long been criticized by numerous legal scholars and several members of the U.S. Supreme Court, including Justice Kagan.
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:
jayjeti 6/30/2025 2:56:53 AM (No. 1971060)
The liberal justices are much more political in their renderings than conservative justices. We see it over over, and Jackson has publicly shown she's ate up with TDS. Kegan is not as bad as dim wits Sodomeyer and Jackson at times.
10 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 6/30/2025 4:23:52 AM (No. 1971061)
This flip flop of Kagan's is the perfect example of why the written "legalese", despised by Jackson, matters. Law is guidelines for all members of society to live by. I can pick up a written law and know what it means. I can ask a lawyer for an opinion on it and get legal advice, which protects me by showing I made an effort to obey the law. We all know where we stand.
But how can I possibly know what is in Kagan's head at the moment, especially when it shifts when blown by the political wind? How can I ask a lawyer for advice when the ground can shift without notice? Law that changes with judicial whim is anarchy. The appeals process is a guard against such arbitrary decisions. Just because the liberal judges sit in the top court doesn't excuse them from basic legal principle as practiced in this Country.
This distinction also points out the different roles that the branches of government serve. The Congress and Judiciary are slower, more deliberative bodies that must follow careful process. Arbitrary action in these bodies is dangerous. The Executive is a dynamic body. It exists in a legal framework but has considerable leeway of action.
Jackson's worry, "it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate." is historically and factually incorrect. The President is immune from personal legal consequences from actions taken as President for a reason. In retrospect, a President's ACTION may be judged as illegal and he may be proscribed from repeating them. Intransigence of a President might lead to impeachment.
However, there is a LOT of room, BY DESIGN, for "unchecked, arbitrary power" to be used by the president. The Constitution and Laws are only a framework for the President to operate within. There is vast room for the President to act within that framework without specific legal approval. It is beyond egotistical for the liberal judges to think that THEY have the power to manage the President's actions without regard to written Law. Ignorance of this FACT is ignorance and disrespect of the Constitution and our Country.
18 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
5 handicap 6/30/2025 7:02:56 AM (No. 1971094)
The author seems somewhat amused that he caught Kagen in a tight place, hypocrisy, regarding her rulings. Does anyone really expect anything resembling "integrity and honesty" from any Democrat...C'mon nobody is that stupid!
20 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 6/30/2025 7:30:21 AM (No. 1971113)
Elena Kagan is dishonest. Hypocritical is too mild a word to use to describe her recent actions. A person this dishonest should not be a judge, let alone sitting on the highest court of the country.
18 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 6/30/2025 7:41:57 AM (No. 1971116)
Ya'd think that the black robed intelligentsia would figure out that EVERYTHING you've said is remembered and before you say ANYTHING you should always use the "LexisNexis" database to review your past comments before saying something that damages your future.
By the way, can someone call the Keebler tree and ask them politely to come get their Elf?
5 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
bpl40 6/30/2025 7:47:21 AM (No. 1971118)
Hypocrisy is the key word here. Universal injunctions is merely the roost it settled on this time. There will doubtless be more instances in the not too distant future There is little we can practically do to Justices with lifetime appointments. But the RINOs that voted to confirm them are known and should be fair game.
7 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
janjan 6/30/2025 8:10:58 AM (No. 1971129)
The SC justices are all political and are never held accountable because they’re in lifetime positions. Pointing out their hypocrisy in editorials might be fun clickbait but it’s mostly irrelevant. Barrett taking down the idiot DEI hire like she’s a first year law school student will be the worst thing that ever happens to them.
11 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Lazyman 6/30/2025 8:13:36 AM (No. 1971130)
It's almost like these three women sent their pictures into law school and were issued a degree.
10 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
sw penn 6/30/2025 8:53:47 AM (No. 1971142)
The "RULE OF LAW" as
the justice of convenience...
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
sw penn 6/30/2025 8:56:49 AM (No. 1971143)
The "RULE OF LAW" as
the justice of convenience...
Sorry.
That's wrong
Better as:
The "RULE OF LAW" as
the law of convenience...
Because there's no "justice" in it...
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
DVC 6/30/2025 10:13:03 AM (No. 1971178)
Without double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
6 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
earlybird 6/30/2025 11:01:32 AM (No. 1971197)
The best article on this subject that I have seen anywhere. Based on her own history, Kagan's failure to follow her own previously stated belief is the worst possible action.
FTA:
Justice Kagan is easily the smartest of the three left-leaning justices who declined to support the Court’s majority on Trump v. CASA, and her public remarks have made it abundantly clear that she thoroughly understands the constitutional nuances of the case. Consequently, it is all but impossible to escape the conclusion that her primary motivation is political. She, like Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, is not guided by a consistent or even coherent judicial philosophy. Nor does she feel any compulsion to adhere to the plain language of the Constitution. Even so, Kagan was too circumspect to join Justice Jackson’s deliberately disrespectful dissent.
3 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
earlybird 6/30/2025 11:20:15 AM (No. 1971205)
Jackson hit the Court like a raging adffirmative action leftist bull. That was the plan for those who anipulated her being put there. Once she had been placed in the DC court it was only a short path to the SCOTUS and her backers knew that senile Joe could be persuaded to nominate her. She is not basically very smart. Reading and furthermore understanding "legalese" is undoubtedly a challenge. So she derides it. She may have greased through all of her education on an AA pass. Regular reading of ordinary English may always have been tough. So she bluffs and blusters and bullies. Sotomayor is ready for retirement and a flaming stupid lib. Kagan is indeed the smartest of the three. How long can she prostitute herself by submitting to Jackson's ibullying and joining with her and Sotomayor as just another partisan sherple without a working brain and with zero integrity?
2 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
DVC 6/30/2025 12:23:50 PM (No. 1971218)
Re #13, 'how long can she prostitute herself..."?
No time limit.
I agree that Kagan is the most intelligent of the three extremists, the other two being clearly affirmative action hires and not particularly intelligent, with Jackson the obvious dunce.
These are three political hacks who only give periodic lip service to the Constitution, usually when lamenting the limits it puts on their activism.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "gaboy"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)