The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on October 04, 2022, 11:11:36 pm
-
Ketanji Brown Jackson Tries Bogus ‘Originalist’ Argument for Racial Discrimination
Joel B. Pollak 4 Oct 2022
Supreme Cout Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson used her second day on the nation’s highest court to make a bizarre “originalist” argument that claimed that since the post-Civil War Amendments were meant to benefit former slaves, they justify “race-conscious” policies.
The Court heard oral arguments in Merrill v. Milligan, a fight over redistricting boundaries in Alabama. Left-wing groups challenged the new map, arguing that it only guaranteed black voters, 28% of the population, one “majority-minority” district our of seven total.
Alabama argued that there was no way to draw another set of districts to create another “majority-minority” district without violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, because it would require state legislators to make race the primary boundary factor.
In addition, the state argued that under a test established by the Thornburg v. Gingles precedent in 1986, a proposed district map has to be race-neutral. It added that the alternative map proposed by the plaintiffs broke up other “communities of interest” in the state.
Justice Jackson, who used much of her question time to test her own theories rather than to elucidate responses from counsel, tried to argue that because the legislators who drafted the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the Civil War had intended to help black people, an originalist interpretation of those amendments would approve the use of race-conscious policies to create equality.
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1577311279328514055
That defies the common understanding of the Equal Protection Clause, and Alabama pointed out that the way the 14th Amendment was meant to help black people was by ending racial discrimination, not by creating new race-based policies. Alabama also argued that the only situation in which the use of race to redraw maps was allowed was when race had been improperly used to draw them.
Justice Jackson has attempted to use “liberal originalism” since her confirmation hearing, when she used originalist arguments in an attempt to show that she understood the dominant conservative theory of jurisprudence — and perhaps to disarm GOP opposition.
The justices seemed skeptical of Alabama’s case — including some of the conservative justices — because it seemed to ask the Court to rewrite the Gingles precedent. Alabama contended that the Equal Protection Clause should apply to the Gingles test as well.
The case is Merrill v. Milligan, docket no. 21-1086.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/10/04/ketanji-brown-jackson-tries-bogus-originalist-argument-for-racial-discrimination/
-
So, the plaintiff wants "separate but more equal than others"?
Wait until the Albanians sue for their own Congressional districts. Jim Belushi for Congress 2024
-
Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1836.
-
KJB is kina dumb.
-
:facepalm2:
-
About what we'd expect from an affirmative action justice.
-
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's Twisted, New Comments Justifying 'Race-Based' Policies
By Nick Arama | 9:30 PM on October 04, 2022
The left is thrilled with what they heard during the second day of oral arguments in the Supreme Court term from new justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The case that was getting a lot of attention was an Alabama gerrymandering case, which they were claiming involved racial discrimination in voting policies, and therefore, was a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
The redrawn map had one majority Black district out of seven, even though Black voters account for 27 percent of the state’s voting population. The Court of Appeals ordered them to redraw the map, which likely would have helped the Democrats. But the Supreme Court took the case, which stopped the order until the appeal was heard.
In court Tuesday, Edmund LaCour, Alabama’s solicitor general, argued that the map was “race-neutral,” and that the order for a new map would put the state at odds with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because it would have to prioritize race in redistricting.
Justice Jackson’s response was concerning, because it tracked right in line with the radical left’s “Equity” take, which the Biden/Harris team has embraced. We saw Kamala Harris get in trouble when she said the quiet part out loud, talking about Hurricane Ian and “giving resources based on equity.”
Now, Jackson said she didn’t think the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection meant that you couldn’t take race into account, saying she didn’t think it was meant to be “race-neutral or race-blind.”
more
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/10/04/justice-ketanji-brown-jacksons-twisted-new-comments-justifying-race-based-policies-n637720
-
KBJ is so far off point with that idea that, to paraphrase Dr. Pauli, it's so bad it's not even wrong. The entire point of the 14th Amendment and the other race-related changes to the Constitution was, precisely, to put things onto a race-neutral basis, so anything that reintroduces racial components to government action would be wholly antithetical to the 14th Amendment.
-
Liberal talking heads are lamenting that the Court will uphold the Ala map in spite of Newly appointed Social Justice KGB's brain dead comments.
-
Typical of the reverse mind-think of the woke Left. Something akin to a 'Jesus walked on water/Jesus can't swim' mindset.
Always trying to flip things to their ideology with loopholes, altered definitions, cherry picking, and language twisting.
-
The entire point of the 14th Amendment and the other race-related changes to the Constitution was, precisely, to put things onto a race-neutral basis
It's why the Democrats opposed the 14th Amendment back in 1868. And it is why they continue to oppose it today.
-
This woman (?? oh wait, I'm not a biologist) is a complete idiot.
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1599797279258337280