Earlier, we shared with you some of the highlights of Justice Clarence Thomas' concurrence blistering his liberal colleague Ketanji Brown Jackson's inane dissent from the Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action in college admissions. You genuinely love to see it. We genuinely love to see it.
But perhaps you're a little bit curious as to what, exactly, it was about KBJ's dissent that Thomas found so worth addressing in his concurrence. Well, that's what this post is for. So sit back, relax, and revel in the abject stupidity of purportedly brilliant legal scholar Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissenting opinion:
Wow. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent. pic.twitter.com/ica3ED6LZq
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) June 29, 2023
"Wow."
WOW from KBJ's dissent in the affirmative action cases: pic.twitter.com/DGSJ5DvtsY
— Leah Litman - @leahlitman.bsky.social (@LeahLitman) June 29, 2023
"WOW." WOW," indeed. As in, "WOW, this is a terrible piece of writing."
So she said some stupid stuff. Congrats.
— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) June 29, 2023
We hope she's not expecting a parade or anything.
Preferring not to pull the ripcord on the parachute is the Flight 93 election of judicial metaphors. https://t.co/peBiEAmmVj
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) June 29, 2023
Apparently KBJ forgot to the pull the rip cord on the parachute that could've kept her from crashing and burning.
ah yes, the "lived experience" legal precedent established in 𝘭𝘰𝘭 𝘷𝘴. 𝘭𝘮𝘢𝘰 https://t.co/y8ROYUU5fr
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) June 29, 2023
and with "let-them-eat-cake," "pulls the ripcord," and "'colorblindness for all'" all jammed into the same sentence, i'm guessing writing isn't the justice's strong suit either.
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) June 29, 2023
Hell, justice isn't the justice's strong suit.
Recommended
Another example of a justice who doesn't understand their job is adjudicating the constitutionality of laws. https://t.co/CoRJrotqvp
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) June 29, 2023
She doesn't even understand what she's arguing.
"...deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life." This argument that would favor all racially discriminatory legal precedents that have been scuttled over the decades. https://t.co/Jo2agqMNU0
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) June 29, 2023
KBJ wants more racism, not less.
"Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life," so apparently we should allow it in the law, too. https://t.co/aBLTQI0VoJ
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) June 29, 2023
I'm struggling to figure out why it's bad in life and therefore good in the law?
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) June 29, 2023
There is zero evidence that allowing race based decisions in college admissions will make racism go away faster. Zero. I thought judges were not supposed to be making policy.
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) June 29, 2023
So much for that ridiculous theory that KBJ is a liberal originalist. https://t.co/nKEdJPZS2h
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) June 29, 2023
She's just a liberal.
"Let them eat cake obliviousness." Really?
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) June 29, 2023
The color blinded application of the law is apparently anathema to the Constitution. That's what the 14th Amendment says. Equal protection has lost all meaning.
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) June 29, 2023
We have had affirmative action for decades and the cries and accusations of racism have gotten worse. Please explain to me how these policies "solve real world problems."
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) June 29, 2023
She has the law completely wrong. 100% backwards. But I could understand it if the policies actually provably worked. But they don't work and they create unintended consequences.
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) June 29, 2023
Exactly. Affirmative action policies ultimately hurt the people they're supposed to help and screw people who don't deserve it. Given the fact that our Constitution is supposed to enshrine our ability to prevent that from happening, it makes sense that affirmative action be deemed unconstitutional. Because it is. It flies in the face of our Constitution. Which Ketanji Brown Jackson is ostensibly supposed to care about but she clearly believes it's her job to bend the Constitution to her will, rather than the other way around.
What’s missing is any reference to the Constitution.
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) June 29, 2023
She thinks her preferred public policy should be ok without reference to the Constitution forbidding it.
This is not a “Living Constitution” argument. It’s a no Constitution at all argument. https://t.co/gSLkklA5Tm
It's also in and of itself a compelling and powerful argument against ... affirmative action. We haven't forgotten that Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated by President Joe Biden solely on the basis of her race and sex. We warned at the time that going forward, she would always have an asterisk after her name because her legal expertise and scholarship were thrown into the back seat in order to uphold Biden's ongoing dumb commitment to diversity over qualifications.
And we were right. Today more than ever, it's abundantly clear that Ketanji Brown Jackson would not be on the Supreme Court were it not for Joe Biden's own affirmative action policy. She was chosen over far more qualified candidates who, if nothing else, would at least be able to put together a coherent dissenting opinion.
As a direct beneficiary of race and gender based affirmative action in a way that even the old scheme of affirmative action would’ve blushed at, of course Jackson does her best at a sophomoric defense of the unjust racial system at hand in this case https://t.co/yyO9Wcp6vv
— Jared Rabel (@JradRabel) June 29, 2023
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member