Did Ketanji Brown Jackson Just Defend
the Racially Oppressive Post-Civil War
‘Black Codes’?

First, I'm a little surprised that there haven't been other replies, unless the phrase "U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson never seems to disappoint" encouraging a reply is so overwhelmingly obvious that one would consider it inane to do so. That said, I'll proffer my reply... In reading the underlying Original Article, plus some others, perhaps one might be inclined to offer a further response to the Justice when considering why the Black Codes should or should not be applicable. She was asking why they should not apply. Council was stating / implying that they should. The applicable Codes were (a) declared 'unconstitutional', and (b) that it was also unconstitutional from birth (of the Code). So I wonder if a different line of reasoning might apply: If one considers that section of Black Code is applicable (therefore going further than the 'surface argument' that it's not due to (a) & (b) above), then, to only consider the initial relevant Black Code and not its follow-on unconstitutional determination (as seems to be the case), would (to me) then imply one should then ignore any such precedent setting ruling (that would declare unconstitutionality in this case). Which leads to a line of questioning back to the referenced Justice something like "Should we therefore ignore any follow-on Supreme Court determination about a prior determination?". If we say to ignore, then everything determined by the Court having any follow-on clarification / determination (regardless of outcome) must, by necessity, be relitigated (i.e., we must therefore ignore even the notion of precedents). To me, that would be rather ridiculous. To the contrary, if we say to we must not ignore any follow-on determination, then I would reply to the referenced Justice that statements about some established law (in this case, the referenced Black Code area) must also include any follow-on determinations (e.g., that the referenced Black Code area was declared unconstitutional) in order to not ignore the affect of precedent or follow-on clarification(s) / determination(s) so as to not take assessments out of context (which is perhaps what the Justice was actually doing in the first case). I'd think this line of reasoning would also apply to the case itself. And not only THIS case, but ANY case for which the Black Codes (or any other determination) would be made use of as an attempt to coerce a particular outcome into place.

I would suggest that Justice Brown Jackson's attempt to include declared unconstitutional lows as a valid reference falls under a variation of "The "fruit of the poisonous tree"" doctrine. Unconstitutional laws are poisonous and are excluded from consideration in legal arguments. To think otherwise is absurd. The only reasonable association is to recognize that if a current case is related to a past decided unconstitutional law, the current case is likely unconstitutional as well, a point being made by the other justices. Jackson is working to prove herself as grossly incompetent as a justice. It must be wearing to never "understand" clear legal doctrine when she is continually tasked to do that. It, simply, is her job. It is deeply disturbing that a person of such incompetence was able to rise through the legal ranks, let alone become a Supreme Court justice.

It's just this simple! Jackson is much too stupid to be on The Court or any court for that matter. As my Hero Bugs would say: "What a Moroon"!

Be interesting to research the history of the Supreme Court to see if there ever was a justice that simply did not belong on the court and what, if anything, was done about it.

If she weren't so sad, she'd be funny.

Does the DEI ban imposed by the President have a grandfather clause? This woman is clearly not qualified to be there. A few of the others are shaky at best.

Jackson is too dumb to know that she is too dumb to be a Supreme Court Justice. Or any other kind of judge!

If Ketanji Brown Jackson was white, and a conservative, and made that argument in open court, people would call her a racist.

What would you expect? As Jackson is a radical Black woman leftist Democrat, or she would not have been nominated and appointed by Biden by way of his auto-pen.

I was a lawyer for 35 years. The whole experience, beginning with law school, was very humbling. I always thought all the other lawyers were smarter than I was. For me the mere thought of becoming a judge would have been terrifying, as I was sure I would have been terrible at it . Yet today, whenever Brown Jackson speaks, I think of the line in the movie, “Everyone in this room is now dumber after hearing that.” I hate to say it, but it’s an embarrassment that someone so clearly in over her head is a US Supreme Court justice. It doesn’t appear she’s smart enough to be a lawyer, much less a judge at any level.

It is a sad day when a Supreme Court justice is confused by the facts. And, a simple straightforward fact

She's clearly very stupid, so she's liable to do or say almost anything, including supporting the Black Codes.